Scholarlink

<p>This article advances a relational ontology of concepts (ROC) by synthesizing philosophy of language, cultural-historical psychology, developmental science, linguistics, and conceptual history into a single account of concepts as dynamic, multi-realized coordination patterns that are socially regulated and historically situated. Against views that treat concepts as fixed inner structures or mere labels, I first establish a single, coherent definition: concepts are purpose-oriented, public coordination patterns realized across distributed resources. I then develop a four-layer framework in which conceptual life emerges through coordination among embodied–affordance dynamics, grammatical–discursive scaffolds, social–normative participation, and institutional–historical infrastructures. Stability is explained by interlocking stabilization loops—practice canalization, grammatical regularities, norm enforcement, and codification—while flexibility is explained by recontextualization dynamics involving goal shifts, framing, dialogical realignment, and artifact or infrastructure innovation. I reinterpret Frege’s sense/reference as publicly shared inferential profiles, integrate Wittgenstein’s rule-following as the enactment and policing of public criteria, and develop a cultural-historical account in which internalization/externalization, the tension between conventional meaning (<i>znachenie</i>) and personal sense (<i>smysl</i>), and the interplay of everyday and scientific concepts reorganize conceptual practice across development. The framework yields methodological guidance for multi-stream evidence, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural predictions consonant with moderate linguistic relativity and thinking-for-speaking, and educational design principles that build coalitions across bodies, grammars, discourse, and inscriptions. I conclude by outlining limitations and a research program aimed at formalizing coalition reweighing and tracing how concepts become coordinates for coordinated action, understanding, and life in common. The result is a coherent, testable synthesis linking meaning, practice, and mind.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Concepts in Motion: Toward a Relational Ontology of Meaning, Practice, and Mind

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月2日

查看全文
  • Tolga Yıldız

摘要

This article advances a relational ontology of concepts (ROC) by synthesizing philosophy of language, cultural-historical psychology, developmental science, linguistics, and conceptual history into a single account of concepts as dynamic, multi-realized coordination patterns that are socially regulated and historically situated. Against views that treat concepts as fixed inner structures or mere labels, I first establish a single, coherent definition: concepts are purpose-oriented, public coordination patterns realized across distributed resources. I then develop a four-layer framework in which conceptual life emerges through coordination among embodied–affordance dynamics, grammatical–discursive scaffolds, social–normative participation, and institutional–historical infrastructures. Stability is explained by interlocking stabilization loops—practice canalization, grammatical regularities, norm enforcement, and codification—while flexibility is explained by recontextualization dynamics involving goal shifts, framing, dialogical realignment, and artifact or infrastructure innovation. I reinterpret Frege’s sense/reference as publicly shared inferential profiles, integrate Wittgenstein’s rule-following as the enactment and policing of public criteria, and develop a cultural-historical account in which internalization/externalization, the tension between conventional meaning (znachenie) and personal sense (smysl), and the interplay of everyday and scientific concepts reorganize conceptual practice across development. The framework yields methodological guidance for multi-stream evidence, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural predictions consonant with moderate linguistic relativity and thinking-for-speaking, and educational design principles that build coalitions across bodies, grammars, discourse, and inscriptions. I conclude by outlining limitations and a research program aimed at formalizing coalition reweighing and tracing how concepts become coordinates for coordinated action, understanding, and life in common. The result is a coherent, testable synthesis linking meaning, practice, and mind.