一词多义不存在,至少在相关意义上不存在

Gábor Bródy, Roman Feiman
{"title":"一词多义不存在,至少在相关意义上不存在","authors":"Gábor Bródy, Roman Feiman","doi":"10.1111/mila.12474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on the existence of polysemy (e.g., lunch can refer to both food and events), it is argued that central tenets of externalist semantics and Fodorian concept atomism, an externalist theory on which words lack semantic structure, are unsound. We evaluate the premise that these arguments rely on—that polysemous words have separate, finer‐grained senses. We survey the evidence across psychology and linguistics and argue that it shows that polysemy does not exist, at least not in this “sense”. The upshot is that if polysemy does not exist, it cannot pose a problem for atomism or externalism.","PeriodicalId":110770,"journal":{"name":"Mind & Language","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polysemy does not exist, at least not in the relevant sense\",\"authors\":\"Gábor Bródy, Roman Feiman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mila.12474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on the existence of polysemy (e.g., lunch can refer to both food and events), it is argued that central tenets of externalist semantics and Fodorian concept atomism, an externalist theory on which words lack semantic structure, are unsound. We evaluate the premise that these arguments rely on—that polysemous words have separate, finer‐grained senses. We survey the evidence across psychology and linguistics and argue that it shows that polysemy does not exist, at least not in this “sense”. The upshot is that if polysemy does not exist, it cannot pose a problem for atomism or externalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":110770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mind & Language\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mind & Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12474\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mind & Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于一词多义的存在(例如,lunch既可以指食物也可以指事件),本文认为外在主义语义学和福多里概念原子论的中心原则是不合理的。福多里概念原子论是一种外在主义理论,认为词语缺乏语义结构。我们评估了这些论点所依赖的前提——多义词有独立的、更细粒度的意思。我们调查了心理学和语言学的证据,认为它表明一词多义是不存在的,至少在这个“意义”上是不存在的。结论是,如果一词多义不存在,它就不会对原子论或外在论构成问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Polysemy does not exist, at least not in the relevant sense
Based on the existence of polysemy (e.g., lunch can refer to both food and events), it is argued that central tenets of externalist semantics and Fodorian concept atomism, an externalist theory on which words lack semantic structure, are unsound. We evaluate the premise that these arguments rely on—that polysemous words have separate, finer‐grained senses. We survey the evidence across psychology and linguistics and argue that it shows that polysemy does not exist, at least not in this “sense”. The upshot is that if polysemy does not exist, it cannot pose a problem for atomism or externalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Modalizing in musical performance Inference and identity On locational sensory individuals and spacetime There is more to belief than Van Leeuwen believes Group identity and the willful subversion of rationality: A reply to De Cruz and Levy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1