Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The present work is a conceptual integrative review of the concept of linguistic meaning and the different frameworks adopted by scholars in this regard. The review clearly demonstrates scholars’ shift of attention from the word and sentential level of meaning (i.e., the traditional view) to a wider scope of context, exceeding the co-text and physical context. To meet this objective, the researchers selected a number of (13) articles that address the concept of linguistic meaning differently using different frameworks. The review is limited to two focal points, the concept of linguistic meaning and the various frameworks adopted. The study has revealed that the traditional view of words and sentences as containers of meaning is no more valid. This is because meaning is seen to be a product resulted from the interplay of different types of contexts, such as the linguistic, physical, social, cultural, and conceptual context. Moreover, meaning is not limited to the verbal mode of language, but rather, it can be extended to include the non-verbal mode as well. More so, the diverse frameworks adopted imply the changeable, dynamic, collective, communicative, conceptual, inferential, encyclopedic and multimodal nature of language in general and meaning in particular. Finally, the study has revealed that it is the mental context that controls both the linguistic meaning and the contextual factors, creating ultimately this mental leap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashid et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: