LINGUISTIC MEANING MEETS LINGUISTIC FORM IN ACTION
Nara Miranda de Figueiredo, Elena Clare Cuffari
Manuscrito March 22, 2022 DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n1.ne via DOAJ
Summary
This paper argues that sign-based semantics can be freed from reliance on mental content by combining linguistic enactivism with insights from cognitive archeology. The authors accept Duffley's methodological use of corpus analysis but reject his ontological commitment to mental content. They propose that meaningful material engagement, as studied in cognitive archeology, shows how sign-using emerges as an enactive capacity—a practical, embodied skill rather than a mental representation. This reframing preserves the empirical rigor of corpus analysis while grounding meaning in situated, material interactions.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Sign-based semantics Enactivism Language Cognitive archeology |
| Citations | 4 |
| Key finding | Sign-based semantics can avoid postulating mental content by treating sign-using as an enactive capacity grounded in meaningful material engagement. |
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we suggest that Duffley’s sign-based semantics rests on two main claims: a methodological one and an ontological one. The methodological one is the analysis of corpora and the ontological one is the postulate of mental content. By adopting a linguistic enactivist perspective with a Wittgensteinian twist, we endorse Duffley’s methodological claim and suggest that a sign-based semantics doesn’t have to rely on mental content if it takes into account the conception of meaningful material engagement in cognitive archeology and its development into sign-using as an enactive capacity.