Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781350143333.ch-002
{"title":"On the Mind of the Body: Spinoza, Descartes, and the Philosophy of Cognition","authors":"","doi":"10.5040/9781350143333.ch-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143333.ch-002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73229620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781350143333.ch-013
{"title":"Numbers Are Things in Time","authors":"","doi":"10.5040/9781350143333.ch-013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143333.ch-013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81795912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781350143333.ch-012
{"title":"Words in Language and Thought","authors":"","doi":"10.5040/9781350143333.ch-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143333.ch-012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81620297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-09DOI: 10.1515/cogsem-2018-2002
V. Naidu, J. Zlatev, V. Duggirala, Joost van de Weijer, Simon Devylder, J. Blomberg
Abstract Leonard Talmy’s influential binary motion event typology has encountered four main challenges: (a) additional language types; (b) extensive “type-internal” variation; (c) the role of other relevant form classes than verbs and “satellites;” and (d) alternative definitions of key semantic concepts like Motion, Path and Manner. After reviewing these issues, we show that the theory of Holistic Spatial Semantics provides analytical tools for their resolution. In support, we present an analysis of motion event descriptions by speakers of two languages that are troublesome for the original typology: Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian), based on the Frog-story elicitation procedure. Despite some apparently similar typological features, the motion event descriptions in the two languages were found to be significantly different. The Telugu participants used very few verbs in contrast to extensive case marking to express Path and nominals to express Region and Landmark, while the Thai speakers relied largely on serial verbs for expressing Path and on prepositions for expressing Region. Combined with previous research in the field, our findings imply (at least) four different clusters of languages in motion event typology with Telugu and Thai as representative of two such clusters, languages like French and Spanish representing a third cluster, and Swedish and English a fourth. This also implies that many other languages like Italian, Bulgarian, and Basque will appear as “mixed languages,” positioned between two or three of these clusters.
Leonard Talmy的二元运动事件类型学受到了四个主要挑战:(a)额外的语言类型;(b)广泛的“类型内部”变异;(c)动词和“卫星”以外的其他相关形式类的作用;(d)关键语义概念如运动、路径和方式的替代定义。在回顾这些问题后，我们表明整体空间语义学理论为解决这些问题提供了分析工具。为了支持这一观点，我们基于青蛙故事的启发过程，对泰语(Tai-Kadai)和泰卢固语(德拉威语)这两种语言的使用者对运动事件的描述进行了分析，这两种语言对原始类型学来说是很麻烦的。尽管有一些明显相似的类型学特征，但两种语言对运动事件的描述却存在显著差异。泰卢固语参与者很少使用动词来表达路径，而大量使用格标记来表达路径，使用名词来表达区域和地标，而泰语使用者主要使用连续动词来表达路径，使用介词来表达区域。结合之前在该领域的研究，我们的发现暗示(至少)在运动事件类型学中有四个不同的语言集群，泰卢固语和泰语是其中两个集群的代表，法语和西班牙语等语言代表第三个集群，瑞典语和英语代表第四个集群。这也意味着许多其他语言，如意大利语、保加利亚语和巴斯克语，将作为“混合语言”出现，位于这两个或三个语言群之间。
{"title":"Holistic spatial semantics and post-Talmian motion event typology: A case study of Thai and Telugu","authors":"V. Naidu, J. Zlatev, V. Duggirala, Joost van de Weijer, Simon Devylder, J. Blomberg","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2018-2002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-2002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Leonard Talmy’s influential binary motion event typology has encountered four main challenges: (a) additional language types; (b) extensive “type-internal” variation; (c) the role of other relevant form classes than verbs and “satellites;” and (d) alternative definitions of key semantic concepts like Motion, Path and Manner. After reviewing these issues, we show that the theory of Holistic Spatial Semantics provides analytical tools for their resolution. In support, we present an analysis of motion event descriptions by speakers of two languages that are troublesome for the original typology: Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian), based on the Frog-story elicitation procedure. Despite some apparently similar typological features, the motion event descriptions in the two languages were found to be significantly different. The Telugu participants used very few verbs in contrast to extensive case marking to express Path and nominals to express Region and Landmark, while the Thai speakers relied largely on serial verbs for expressing Path and on prepositions for expressing Region. Combined with previous research in the field, our findings imply (at least) four different clusters of languages in motion event typology with Telugu and Thai as representative of two such clusters, languages like French and Spanish representing a third cluster, and Swedish and English a fourth. This also implies that many other languages like Italian, Bulgarian, and Basque will appear as “mixed languages,” positioned between two or three of these clusters.","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82511365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-18DOI: 10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005
Andrew Feeney
Abstract This article examines Bouchard’s (e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010. From neurons to signs. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer & K. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference on the evolution of language, 42–49. Singapore: World Scientific; Bouchard, D. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Bouchard, D. 2015. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6.) discussion of the nature of language as ‘Saussurian Biolinguistics.’ A fundamental assumption of Bouchard, that of the existence of the Saussurian sign as a psychologically real entity in language, is disputed and an alternative understanding of the semiotic function of language is stressed. The consequences of Bouchard’s adoption of double interface signs for the relation of language to thought are also discussed and it is argued that such an approach leads inexorably to a form of linguistic relativity, and that positing a language independent ‘mentalese’ resolves this problem. The proposed model of language evolution, in which Bouchard is sceptical of protolanguage, is challenged, as are his claims regarding the properties of the language faculty. Bouchard presents a theory of the cognitive underpinning of language, ‘Offline Brain Systems,’ which is inadequate in accounting for the unique properties of human cognition. Instead, a more insightful and explanatorily comprehensive theory is presented here: dual-processing and the Representational Hypothesis.
本文考察了Bouchard的(e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010)。从神经元到符号。A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer和K. Smith(编)，第八届语言进化国际会议论文集，42-49。新加坡:世界科学;Bouchard, D. 2013。语言的本质和起源。牛津:牛津大学出版社;Bouchard, D. 2015。大脑准备和语言的本质。《心理学前沿》6)作为“索绪尔式生物语言学”讨论语言的本质。布沙尔的一个基本假设，即索绪尔符号作为语言中心理上的真实实体的存在，是有争议的，并且强调了语言的符号学功能的另一种理解。本文还讨论了布沙尔采用双重界面符号来解释语言与思维关系的结果，并认为这种方法不可避免地导致一种语言相对性，而假设一种独立于语言的“心理语”解决了这个问题。布沙尔对原始语言持怀疑态度的语言进化模型受到了挑战，他关于语言能力特性的主张也受到了挑战。布沙尔提出了一种关于语言认知基础的理论，即“离线大脑系统”，该理论不足以解释人类认知的独特属性。相反，这里提出了一个更有洞察力和解释性更全面的理论:双重加工和表征假说。
{"title":"Saussurian biolinguistics? Bouchard’s offline brain systems and Sign Theory of Language","authors":"Andrew Feeney","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines Bouchard’s (e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010. From neurons to signs. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer & K. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference on the evolution of language, 42–49. Singapore: World Scientific; Bouchard, D. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Bouchard, D. 2015. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6.) discussion of the nature of language as ‘Saussurian Biolinguistics.’ A fundamental assumption of Bouchard, that of the existence of the Saussurian sign as a psychologically real entity in language, is disputed and an alternative understanding of the semiotic function of language is stressed. The consequences of Bouchard’s adoption of double interface signs for the relation of language to thought are also discussed and it is argued that such an approach leads inexorably to a form of linguistic relativity, and that positing a language independent ‘mentalese’ resolves this problem. The proposed model of language evolution, in which Bouchard is sceptical of protolanguage, is challenged, as are his claims regarding the properties of the language faculty. Bouchard presents a theory of the cognitive underpinning of language, ‘Offline Brain Systems,’ which is inadequate in accounting for the unique properties of human cognition. Instead, a more insightful and explanatorily comprehensive theory is presented here: dual-processing and the Representational Hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76791190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-12DOI: 10.1515/cogsem-2018-2004
Todd Oakley
I thank Per Aage Brandt (2017) for his commentary, which elaborates on the gift origins of money that was only elliptically alluded to in my own piece. I agree with Brandt’s genealogical argument that giving underlies the social categories of debtor and creditor. This indeed was the point of Graeber’s analysis of credit money, from which my own analysis draws heavily. Brandt’s discussion of the role of priests and the priestly class in the establishment of wealth and credit is well established. In fact, my own claims of the money-as-credit origins of what becomes sovereign (state) money systems is fairly well attested among historians of money, whether conscious of Mauss’s important discussion of gifts or not. Brandt is also correct in emphasizing the role of metallic adornments in the history of money. I caution, however, that it is easy to slip seamlessly from acknowledging the material necessity of monetary “inscriptions” to mistaking the expressive sign of money for its content — a mistake made repeatedly throughout history, with disastrous consequences (such as John Locke’s arguments in the late seventeenth century that send England into a financial tailspin) that persist to this day. This is in part due to the fact that money as a store-of-value has to have some form of materialization, but it is and has always been the case, even as far back as Mesopotamia, that the store-of-value resides in whatever records of debts and credits are being maintained and, importantly, WHO has the authority to create and edit the record. As Brandt points out, the priestly classes historically have been “chartered” with the rights to create and edit the ledger, using precious metals as the preferred medium (for physical and religious reasons). It is not a coincidence, then, that precious metals are a perduring material of the pecuniary interest, but it is also important to emphasize that the evidence for “banking” in the form of cuneiform ledgers appears long before evidence of its metallic avatars (see Werner 2005). I mention this in part to emphasize that a fiat-basis for money is not a consequence of metallic adornments, but rather metallic adornments as coined money are consequences of the fiat-based “banking” operations. Brandt’s account and his response, however, focuses on banking as a “mediational” activity, which dilutes his initial point of priest being the first bankers — banks, both historically and especially now, are institutions that either arrogate or are granted the power to create credit-money — their roles as “mediators” are socially salient constructions, which do not, in fact, capture their real operations. Banking as a function of goldsmithery in medieval England and the high prevalence of bankers from European Jewry (a profession for which they were legally consigned to in some instances) adds to the legend of the mediators as outsiders. But goldsmiths did not lend from their deposits in gold, rather they created “fictional deposits” in
{"title":"Still more on money: A response to Brandt","authors":"Todd Oakley","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2018-2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-2004","url":null,"abstract":"I thank Per Aage Brandt (2017) for his commentary, which elaborates on the gift origins of money that was only elliptically alluded to in my own piece. I agree with Brandt’s genealogical argument that giving underlies the social categories of debtor and creditor. This indeed was the point of Graeber’s analysis of credit money, from which my own analysis draws heavily. Brandt’s discussion of the role of priests and the priestly class in the establishment of wealth and credit is well established. In fact, my own claims of the money-as-credit origins of what becomes sovereign (state) money systems is fairly well attested among historians of money, whether conscious of Mauss’s important discussion of gifts or not. Brandt is also correct in emphasizing the role of metallic adornments in the history of money. I caution, however, that it is easy to slip seamlessly from acknowledging the material necessity of monetary “inscriptions” to mistaking the expressive sign of money for its content — a mistake made repeatedly throughout history, with disastrous consequences (such as John Locke’s arguments in the late seventeenth century that send England into a financial tailspin) that persist to this day. This is in part due to the fact that money as a store-of-value has to have some form of materialization, but it is and has always been the case, even as far back as Mesopotamia, that the store-of-value resides in whatever records of debts and credits are being maintained and, importantly, WHO has the authority to create and edit the record. As Brandt points out, the priestly classes historically have been “chartered” with the rights to create and edit the ledger, using precious metals as the preferred medium (for physical and religious reasons). It is not a coincidence, then, that precious metals are a perduring material of the pecuniary interest, but it is also important to emphasize that the evidence for “banking” in the form of cuneiform ledgers appears long before evidence of its metallic avatars (see Werner 2005). I mention this in part to emphasize that a fiat-basis for money is not a consequence of metallic adornments, but rather metallic adornments as coined money are consequences of the fiat-based “banking” operations. Brandt’s account and his response, however, focuses on banking as a “mediational” activity, which dilutes his initial point of priest being the first bankers — banks, both historically and especially now, are institutions that either arrogate or are granted the power to create credit-money — their roles as “mediators” are socially salient constructions, which do not, in fact, capture their real operations. Banking as a function of goldsmithery in medieval England and the high prevalence of bankers from European Jewry (a profession for which they were legally consigned to in some instances) adds to the legend of the mediators as outsiders. But goldsmiths did not lend from their deposits in gold, rather they created “fictional deposits” in","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82397063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：