Skip to main content
Log in

Semantics, conceptual spaces, and the meeting of minds

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present an account of semantics that is not construed as a mapping of language to the world but rather as a mapping between individual meaning spaces. The meanings of linguistic entities are established via a “meeting of minds.” The concepts in the minds of communicating individuals are modeled as convex regions in conceptual spaces. We outline a mathematical framework, based on fixpoints in continuous mappings between conceptual spaces, that can be used to model such a semantics. If concepts are convex, it will in general be possible for interactors to agree on joint meaning even if they start out from different representational spaces. Language is discrete, while mental representations tend to be continuous—posing a seeming paradox. We show that the convexity assumption allows us to address this problem. Using examples, we further show that our approach helps explain the semantic processes involved in the composition of expressions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bates, E. (Ed.) (1976) Language and context. The acquisition of pragmatics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge C. (1997) Topological spaces. Dover, Mineola

    Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky L. (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1): 1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinck I. (2004) The pragmatics of imperative and declarative pointing. Cognitive Science Quarterly 3: 255–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinck I., Gärdenfors P. (2003) Co-operation and communication in apes and humans. Mind and Language 18: 484–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer L. E. J. (1910) Über ein eindeutige, stetige Transformation von Flächen in sich. Mathematische Annalen 69: 176–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron P., Hogkin J. G., Naimpally S. A. (1974) Nearness: A better approach to continuity and limits. The American Mathematical Monthly 81(7): 739–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark H. (1992) Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark H., Schaefer E.F. (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13: 259–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft W., Cruse D. A. (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker P., van Rooij R. (2000) Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17: 217–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans V. (2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 491–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier G., Turner R. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2): 133–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitting M. (2002) Fixpoint semantics for logic programming: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science 278: 25–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galantucci B. (2005) An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science 29: 737–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (1997). Does semantics need reality? In Does representation need reality? (pp. 113–120). Austrian Society of Cognitive Science Technical Report 97-01, Vienna.

  • Gärdenfors P. (2000) Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (2003) How homo became sapiens: On the evolution of thinking. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2007). Representing actions and functional properties in conceptual spaces. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. M. Frank (Eds.), Body, language and mind: Embodiment (Vol. 1, pp. 167–195). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Gärdenfors P., Osvath M. (2010) The evolution of anticipatory cognition as a precursor to symbolic communication. In: Larson R. et al (eds) Evolution of language: Biolinguistic approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 103–114

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P., & Warglien, M. (to appear a). The development of semantic space for pointing and verbal communication. In J. Hudson, U. Magnusson & C. Paradis (Eds.), Conceptual spaces and the construal of spatial meaning: Empirical evidence from human communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gärdenfors, P., & Warglien, M. (to appear b). Using conceptual spaces to model actions and events, to appear in Journal of Semantics.

  • Garrod S., Anderson A. (1987) Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 27(2): 181–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow S. (2007) Pointing sets the stage for learning language and creating language. Child Development 78: 741–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

  • Harnad S. (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42: 335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics (Vol. II, pp. 114–125). Stanford, CA.

  • Holyoak K. J., Thagard P. (1996) Mental leaps. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopfield J. J. (1982) Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 79: 2554–2558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K. (1993). Implementing cognitive semantics. Lund University Cognitive Studies 17, Lund.

  • Jackendoff R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger G. (2007) The evolution of convex categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 551–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, G. (2010). Natural color categories are convex sets. In Logic, language and meaning, LNCS 6042 (pp. 11–20). Berlin: Springer.

  • Jäger G., van Rooij R. (2007) Language structure: Psychological and social constraints. Synthese 159: 99–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson, M. (2002). Geometric models of similarity. Lund University Cognitive Studies 87, Lund.

  • Kripke S. (1975) Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy 72: 690–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker R. W. (1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10: 1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Lewis D. (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maunder C. R. F. (1980) Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mervis C., Rosch E. (1981) Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32: 89–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky R. M. (1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14: 54–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okabe A., Boots B., Sugihara K. (1992) Spatial tessellations: Concepts and applications of Voronoi diagrams. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Parikh P. (2000) Communication, meaning and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 185–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parikh P. (2010) Language and equilibrium. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering M. J., Garrod S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H. (1975) The meaning of ’meaning’. In: Gunderson K. (Ed.) Language, mind and knowledge. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 131–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E. (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E. (1978) Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In: Scholnik E. (Ed.) New trends in cognitive representation: Challenges to Piagets theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 73–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling T. (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Pres, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten R., Warglien M. (2007) The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(18): 7361–7366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard R. N. (1987) Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237: 1317–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B. (1998) Salience and symmetry-breaking in the evolution of convention. Law and Philosophy 17: 411–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1979) Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello M. (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Sternberg R. J. (1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition 11: 203–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (2008) Games that make sense: Logic, language and multi-agent interaction. In: Apt K., van Rooij R. (eds) New perspectives on games and interaction. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 197–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Varzi, A., & Warglien, M. (manuscript). Indeterminate contracts and semantic indeterminacy.

  • Warglien, M. (2001). Playing conversation games. Paper presented at the 2001 Wittgenstein society symposium, Kirchberg.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Gärdenfors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Warglien, M., Gärdenfors, P. Semantics, conceptual spaces, and the meeting of minds. Synthese 190, 2165–2193 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9963-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9963-z

Keywords

Navigation