Conceptual semantics

Conceptual semantics is a framework for semantic analysis developed mainly by Ray Jackendoff. Its aim is to provide a characterization of the conceptual elements by which a person understands words and sentences, and thus to provide an explanatory semantic representation (title of a Jackendoff 1976 paper). Explanatory in this sense refers to the ability of a given linguistic theory to describe how a component of language is acquired by a child (as proposed by Noam Chomsky; see Levels of adequacy).

Recently, conceptual semantics in particular, and lexical semantics in general, have taken on increasing importance in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Many contemporary theories of syntax (how sentences are constructed from individual words) rely on elements that are idiosyncratic to words themselves. As a result, a sound theory accounting for the properties of the meanings of words is required.

Problems with conceptual semantics

Jackendoff’s system could be criticized for precisely this feature: its highly abstract primitives. These may permit interesting connections to be made between apparently unrelated meanings, but how justified are we in believing that these connections are cognitively real? Clearly, the more abstract the conceptual primitives we propose, the greater the number of possible connections between domains we can make. This is a similar criticism to the criticism of arbitrariness earlier made against cognitive semantics . What guarantee do we have, for instance, that a conceptual feature like [PL] really exists? In its current early state, the theory seems somewhat arbitrary and unconstrained: the investigator simply looks for plausible underlying conceptual structures, but there are no clear procedures for determining when a primitive is justified. Jackendoff has addressed this question in two ways. First, he has stated that it is simply too early to demand that the theory justify its primitives: as in any immature science, all we have to go on are hunches; only when we have a good description of the semantic phenomena can we begin to constrain the theory (1990: 4). Second, he adopts a holistic approach to the justification of his primitives: In fact, an isolated primitive can never be justified: a primitive makes sense only in the context of the overall system of primitives in which it is embedded. With this proviso, however, I think a particular choice of primitives should be justified on the grounds of its capacity for expressing generalizations and explaining the distribution of the data. That is, a proposed system of primitives is subject to the usual scientific standards of evaluation. (1991: 12)

See also

• Conceptual metaphor
• Levels of adequacy
• Lexical semantics
• Semantics

References

• Jackendoff, Ray (1976). "Toward an explanatory semantic representation". Linguistic Inquiry. 7 (1): 89–150.
• Jackendoff, Ray (1976). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 283. ISBN 0-262-10027-4.
• Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 322. ISBN 0-262-10043-6.
• Jackendoff, Ray (1991). "Parts and boundaries". In Levin, Beth & Pinker, Steven (ed.). Lexical & conceptual semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. p. 244. ISBN 1-55786-354-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 477. ISBN 0-19-827012-7.
• Jackendoff, Ray (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 403. ISBN 978-0-262-10119-6.