Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 24:1 (2026) ► pp.238–264

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The view of meaning from a “postclassical” perspective

 | The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Published online: 16 July 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
Abstract
In recent years, a number of scholars have expressed doubts about the productivity of the concept of meaning and its associated methodology for modern lexical semantics. This article aims to examine the current situation by comparing it with the process of transition from classical to quantum physics. Empirical data that challenge classical interpretations are briefly analyzed in a special section, whilst the subsequent sections address alternative theories that propose new methodological frameworks. Particular attention is paid to the ad hoc СС & Ms theory developed by Daniel Casasanto and colleagues, though Hans-Jörg Schmid’s Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model formulated by Jordan Zlatev and colleagues are also touched upon. In the final section, frame semantics, as presented by Charles Fillmore, is revisited, with a focus on his dichotomy of U-semantics and T-semantics. A significant result of the analysis of Fillmore’s perspectives is the assertion that the concept of frame in Fillmore’s construal can serve as an alternative to the concept of meaning in its classical interpretation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The concept of meaning in the “classical” perspective
  • 3.The empirical evidence that does not fit within the “classical” concept of meaning
  • 4.The new perspectives in philosophy and cognitive science
  • 5.The “postclassical” theories in cognitive semantics
  • 6.Charles Fillmore’s “frame semantics”
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (87)
References
Apostolopoulos, D. (2019). Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of language. London & New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Grounded cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2 (4), 716–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 311, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2021). Metalinguistic relativity. Does one’s ontology determine one’s view on linguistic relativity. Language and Communication, 76(4), 35–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1963). Essays, 1958–1962, on atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Interscience Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, H. (1974). Anmerkungen zur Logik, Ontologie, und Semantik bei Leibniz [Notes on logic, ontology, and semantics in Leibniz]. Studia Leibnitiana, 61, 49–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543–566). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford & NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devyldier, S. & Zlatev, J. (2020). Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 253–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In St. Harnad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech, 2801 (pp. 20–32). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B. (1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approach to the lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1994). The Stoic notion of a Lekton. In S. Everson (Ed.), Language (pp. 109–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006a). Words and other wonders: papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: M. de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Yv. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York & London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2006). The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 159–192). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glebkin, V. (2013). A socio-cultural history of the machine metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1), 145–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013a). The Conceptual Integration Theory of Fauconnier and Turner (An essay of systemic analysis). Social Sciences, 44(4), 69–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition? Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 95–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (2010). Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hass, L. (2008). Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heelan, P. (2016). The observable: Heisenberg’s philosophy of quantum mechanics. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helrich, C. (2021). The quantum theory – origins and ideas. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Bouncebackability: A Web-as-corpus-based case study of a new formation, its interpretation, generalization/spread and subsequent decline. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(2), 17–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howard, D. (2022). The Copenhagen interpretation. In O. Friere Jr. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the history of quantum interpretations (pp. 521–542). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jemmer, M. (1974). The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krois, J., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D. (eds.) (2007). Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landes, D. (2013). The Merleau-Ponty dictionary. London & New York: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1996). New essays on human understanding. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. (First published 1765) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The art of controversies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, A. (2005). Stoic linguistics, Plato’s Cratylus, and Augustine’s De dialectica. In D. Frede & B. Inwood (Eds.), Language and learning: Philosophy of language in the Hellenistic Age (pp. 36–55). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 71, 167–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maat, J. (2004). Philosophical languages in the seventeenth century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madzia, R., & Jung, M. (Eds.) (2016). Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: from bodily intersubjectivity to symbolic articulation. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manetti, G. (1993). Theories of the sign in classical antiquity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mates, B. (1989). The philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and language. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehra, J. & Rechenberg, H. (1982–2001). The historical development of quantum theory. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967). La structure du comportement [The structure of behavior]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). Le Visible et l’invisible [The Visible and the Invisible]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–77). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noё, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, Ch., & Richards, I. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & company, inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet construction. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plotnitsky, A. (2006). Reading Bohr: Physics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posner, M. (1986). Empirical studies of prototypes. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 53–61). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 328–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975). Reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 532–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975a). Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1041, 192–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Еds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; New York: distributed by Halsted Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F. & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. [URL]
Ruthenford, D. (1995). Philosophy and language in Leibniz. In N. Jolley (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Leibniz (pp. 224–269). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2015). Prototype effects in grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, D. (1972). Leibniz and language. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 351, 297–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1904). Die « Objectivität » sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [The ‘objectivity’ of sociological and socio-political knowledge]. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, 191, 22–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Innate conceptual primitives manifested in the languages of the world and in infant cognition. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 379–412). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. (2006). The situated nature of concepts. The American Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 349–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M. (Eds.) (2007). Body, language, and mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J. (2019). Norms of language: What kinds and where from? Insights from phenomenology. In A. Mäkilähde, V. Leppanen, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity in language and linguistics (pp. 69–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Glebkin, Vladimir
2025. What does it mean for cognitive linguistics to be a usage-based discipline?. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue