Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conceptual Space | Gärdenfors | I 21 Conceptual Space/Croft/Gärdenfors: Thesis: the (linguistically fixed) categories may vary from language to language, but they are projected onto a common concept space that represents a common cognitive heritage that is, in fact, the geography of the human mind , (Croft 2003, p. 139)(1). This space can be read due to linguistic facts in a way that advanced brain scans will never allow us. (Croft 2001, p. 364).(2) Gärdenfors: I am not concerned here with the geography of this space, but with its geometry. Thereby, I use terms like dimension, distance, region and some terms of the vector algebra. Conceptual Space: are constructed from quality dimensions such as pitch, temperature, weight, size and force. Dimensions: its primary function is to represent the "qualities" of objects in different domains. Space/Domain: e.g. space (dimensions, height, width, depth) color (hue, saturation, brightness), taste (salty, bitter, sweet, sour, possibly a fifth dimension), feeling (excitement, value), form (less researched dimension). --- I 22 Similarity: topology and geometry of the conceptaul space allow us to say that if x is closer to y than z, then x is more similar to y than z. Interpretation/Qualities: qualities can now be interpreted scientifically and cognitively. We must distinguish this. Cognitive interpretation: means that we do not have to determine e.g. the wavelengths, but psychophysical determinations of the way concepts are represented in our mind. --- I 140 Conceptual space/domain/structure/Gärdenfors: the geometrical structure of a conceptual space influences the possibilities of the linguistic use of adjectives. (See Paradis, 2001, 2008). (3)(4) Here we distinguish scalable domains(e.g. size, temperature) of non-scalable domains: adjectives (e.g. dead, alive). Adverbs: E.g. very, terrible, considerable. --- I 141 See also Paradis (2008, p. 331).(4) Adverbs/Gärdenfors: the topological structure of the adjective-related domain determines which adverbs can be combined with the adjective. 1. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge. 2. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3. Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 47–65. 4. Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals, and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12, 317–343. |
Gä I P. Gärdenfors The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014 |
| Conceptual Space | Croft | Gärdenfors I 21 Conceptual space/concept space/Croft/Gärdenfors: thesis: the (linguistically fixed) categories may vary from language to language, but they are projected onto a common concept space that represents a common cognitive heritage that is, in fact, the geography of the human mind, (Croft 2003, p. 139). This space can be read due to linguistic facts in a way that advanced brain scans will never be able to do so. (Croft 2001, p. 364). Gärdenfors: I am not concerned with the geography of this space, but with its geometry. I use terms like dimension, distance, region and some terms of the vector algebra. Concept spaces: are constructed from quality dimensions such as tone pitch, temperature, weight, size and force. Dimensions: its primary function is to represent the "qualities" of objects in different domains. Domain: e.g. space (dimensions height, width, depth) color (hue, saturation, brightness), taste (salty, bitter, sweet, sour, possibly a fifth dimension), feeling (excitation, value), form (less explored dimension). --- I 22 Similarity: Topology and geometry of concept space allow us to say that if x is closer to y than z, then x is more similar to y than z. Interpretation/Qualities: Qualities can now be interpreted scientifically and cognitively. We must distinguish this. Cognitive interpretation: means that we do not determine e.g. the wave lengths, but psychophysical determinations of the way how concepts are represented in our mind. |
Croft I William Croft Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective Oxford 2001 Gä I P. Gärdenfors The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014 |
| |||