Could sign-based semantics and embodied semantics benefit one another?
I argue that Duffley’s sign-based semantics and embodied semantics may be mutually beneficial if we conceive them as a semantic theory and as a foundational theory, respectively. First, I describe embodied semantics as a research program that conceives the foundations of meaning in terms of embodied...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
| Repositorio: | Manuscrito (Online) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8668921 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668921 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Linguistic meaning Foundations of meaning Embodied cognition |
| Resumo: | I argue that Duffley’s sign-based semantics and embodied semantics may be mutually beneficial if we conceive them as a semantic theory and as a foundational theory, respectively. First, I describe embodied semantics as a research program that conceives the foundations of meaning in terms of embodied simulation. Afterwards, I draw attention to three points (the analysis of FOR, verbs of positive and negative recall, and causative verbs) where Duffley’s semantics could find support in such a foundational theory. Finally, I suggest that two pressing challenges currently on the agenda of embodied semantics (abstract language and sentence-level simulations) could be met by Duffley’s theory. |
|---|