Advertisement

On Referring to Gestalts

  • Olav K. Wiegand
Chapter
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 195)

Abstract

This paper discusses a fresh approach to formal semantics based on mereology and Gestalt Theory. While Wiegand (2007, Spacial Cognition & Computation, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum) unfolds the technical details of this new approach, the following paper aims to discuss the philosophical motivation an implications of what I have called mereological semantics. Particular attention will be given to an ongoing debate on the nature of relations.

Keywords

Internal Relation Central Circle Proper Part External Relation Outer Horizon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

 I wish to thank Mirja Hartimo for helping me to bring this paper into shape. I am grateful to Dorothea for having communicated her understanding of wholeness to me.

References

  1. Barcan Marcus, R. 1962. Modal Logics I: Modalities and Intensional Languages. In Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1961/1962, ed. M. W. Wartofsky (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1) Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Davey, B. A. and Priestley, H. A. 2002. Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gurwitsch, A. 1936. Some Aspects and Developments of Gestalt Psychology. In (1966): 3–55.Google Scholar
  4. Gurwitsch, A. 1929. Phänomenologie der Thematik und des reinen Ich. Psychologische Forschung 12: 279–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gurwitsch, A. 1940. On the Intentionality of Consciousness. In Gurwitsch (1966): 124–140.Google Scholar
  6. Gurwitsch, A. 1959. Contribution to the Phenomenological Theory of Perception. In Gurwitsch (1966): 332–349.Google Scholar
  7. Gurwitsch, A. 1966. Studies in Phenomenology and Psychology. Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern UP.Google Scholar
  8. Gurwitsch, A. 1982. Husserl’s Theory of the Intentionality of Consciousness. In Husserl, Intentionality and Cognitive Science, ed. H. L. Dreyfus in collaboration with Harrison Hall. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hintikka, J. 1969. Models for Modalities. Selected Essays. Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Hochberg, H. 1992. Troubles with Tropes. Philosophical Studies 67: 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hume, D. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. Johansson, I. 2004. On the Transitivity of the Parthood Relations. In Relations and Predicates, eds. H. Hochberg and K. Mulligan, 161–181. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  13. Johansson, I. 2006. Four Kinds of “IS_A” Relations: genus-subsumption, determinable-subsumption, specification, and specialization. Contributions to WSPI 2006. IFOMIS Reports 14 (04 / 06): 47–62.Google Scholar
  14. Kellman, P. J. 2000. An Update on Gestalt Psychology. In Perception, Cognition, and Language, eds. B. Landau, J. Sabini, J. Jonides and E. Newport, 157–89. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Köhler, W. [1925] 1999. The Mentality of Apes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Köhler, W. 1971. Die Aufgabe der Gestaltpsychologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. In Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, April 1977, eds. W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox and S. Philosoph. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1977. (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-83904.)Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G. 1986. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford (CA): Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  20. Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford (CA): Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  21. Moltmann, F. 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. New York [u. a.]: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  22. Mulligan, K. 1998. Relations – Through Thick and Thin. Erkenntnis 48: 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rescher, N. 1955. Axioms for the Part Relation. Philosophical Studies 6: 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rescher, N. and Oppenheim, P. 1955. Logical Analysis of Gestalt Concepts. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6: 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rock, I. 1985. The Logic of Perception. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rock, I and Palmer, S. 1990. The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology. Scientific American 12: 48–61.Google Scholar
  27. Rota, G. -C. 1985. The Barrier of Meaning. Letters in Mathematical Physics 10: 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rota, G. -C. 1989. Fundierung as a Logical Concept. The Monist 72: 70–77.Google Scholar
  29. Seebohm, T. M. 1991. Psychologism Revisited. In Phenomenology and The Formal Sciences, eds. T. M. Seebohm et al., 149–182. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Simons, P. M. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vols. I and II. Cambridge (MA), London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Talmy, A. C. 2006. A Note on the Transitivity of Parthood. Applied Ontology Vol. I, No. 2: 141–146.Google Scholar
  33. Von Wachter, D. 1998. On Doing without Relations. Erkenntnis 48: 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wertheimer, M. 1922. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. I. Prinzipielle Bemerkungen. Psy-chologische Forschung 1: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wertheimer, M. 1923a. Bemerkungen zu Hillebrandts Theorie der stroboskopischen Bewegungen. Psy-chologische Forschung 3: 106–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wertheimer, M. 1923b. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologische Forschung 4: 301–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wertheimer, M. [1947] 1982. Productive Thinking. ed. by M. Wertheimer. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wiegand, O. 1998. Interpretationen der Modallogik. Ein Beitrag zur phänomenologischen Wissen-schaftstheorie. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Wiegand, O. K. 2000. Phenomenological-Semantic Investigations into Incompleteness. In Phenome-nology on Kant, German Idealism, Hermeneutics and Logic, eds. Wiegand et al., 101–131. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Wiegand, O. 2001. The Phenomenological Semantics of Natural Language, Part I. The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy 1: 241–55.Google Scholar
  41. Wiegand, O. 2007. A Formalism Supplementing Cognitive Semantics Based on Mereology. In: Spacial Cognition & Computation (SCC) Vol. 7 Number 1. eds. W. Kuhn, M. Raubal and P. Gärdenfors. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum: 33–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olav K. Wiegand
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations