Explore the vast range of titles available.

Culture, 1922traces the intellectual and institutional deployment of the culture concept in England and America in the first half of the twentieth century. With primary attention to how models of culture are created, elaborated upon, transformed, resisted, and ignored, Marc Manganaro works across disciplinary lines to embrace literary, literary critical, and anthropological writing. Tracing two traditions of thinking about culture, as elite products and pursuits and as common and shared systems of values, Manganaro argues that these modernist formulations are not mutually exclusive and have indeed intermingled in complex and interesting ways throughout the development of literary studies and anthropology. Beginning with the important Victorian architects of culture--Matthew Arnold and Edward Tylor--the book follows a number of main figures, schools, and movements up to 1950 such as anthropologist Franz Boas, his disciples Edward Sapir, Ruth Benedict, and Zora Neale Hurston, literary modernists T. S. Eliot and James Joyce, functional anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, modernist literary critic I. A. Richards, the New Critics, and Kenneth Burke. The main focus here, however, is upon three works published in 1922, the watershed year of Modernism--Eliot'sThe Waste Land, Malinowski'sArgonauts of the Western Pacific, and Joyce'sUlysses. Manganaro reads these masterworks and the history of their reception as efforts toward defining culture. This is a wide-ranging and ambitious study about an ambiguous and complex concept as it moves within and between disciplines.

Orientation: Meaning is not a concept whose significance needs to be debated anymore. Rather, the meaning of meaning is a concept that needs more clarity to improve its understanding.Research purpose: In this paper, the construct of meaning is deconstructed to develop a lexicon of the respective meanings of meaning, especially as they apply to the domain of work.Motivation for the study: Descriptions of the various meanings of meaning tend to be lost across many different journal articles and books. More clarity regarding the meanings of meaning and how they compare and relate with each other is essential to promote valid research and influential practice in this field.Research approach/design and method: Theoretical research is conducted through a literature study and the meanings of meaning are determined through theory synthesis and topical analyses.Main findings: Meaning is a multidimensional construct, especially as it applies to the work context. The concept of meaning in life is distinct and should be distinguished from related concepts, such as the meaning of work, meaning at work, meaning in work, and meaningful work.Practical/managerial implications: By clarifying meanings of meaning, the lexicon provides a unique reference work for scholars, and an essential guide for practitioners in the fields of psychology, industrial and organisational psychology, and even psychiatry, who aspire to advance and promote meaningfulness in their work contexts.Contribution/value-add: As far as could be established, this is the first lexicon of the meanings of meaning in one easy-to-use compendium, for accurate comparison and reference.

In this article I critically discuss English-speaking philosophical literature addressing the question of what it essentially means to speak of “life’s meaning”. Instead of considering what might in fact confer meaning on life, I make two claims about the more abstract, meta-ethical question of how to understand what by definition is involved in making that sort of enquiry. One of my claims is that over the past five years there has been a noticeable trend among philosophers to try to change our understanding of what talk of “life’s meaning” connotes. For example, whereas most philosophers for a long while had held that such talk is about a kind of value possible in the life of human beings, recently some have argued that certain non-human parts of nature can exhibit meaningfulness, which, furthermore, is not necessarily something valuable. The second claim I advance is that there is strong reason to reject this trend, and instead for philosophers to retain the long-standing approach.

Research on meaningful work has not embraced a shared definition of what it is, in part because many researchers and laypersons agree that it means different things to different people. However, subjective and social accounts of meaningful work have limited practical value to help people pursue it and to help scholars study it. The account of meaningful work advanced in this paper is inherently normative. It recognizes the relevance of subjective experience and social agreement to appraisals of meaningfulness but considers them conceptually incomplete and practically limited. According to this normative account, meaningful work should be meaningful to oneself and to others and is also meaningful independent of them. It sets forth grounds for evaluating some work to be more meaningful than other work, asserting the possibility that one could be mistaken about the meaningfulness of one's work. While it thus proscribes some claims to meaningful work, it also opens up potential new avenues of inquiry into, among other things, self-aggrandizing and harmful work that is experienced as meaningful, morally valuable work that is not experienced as meaningful, and the distinction between experienced and normative meaningfulness.

Which value-related perspective better aligns with the search for meaning: individualism or collectivism? We explored the impact of group individualism or collectivism and attitude toward meaning on the relationship between the search for and the presence of meaning among individuals. Thus, three studies were conducted: one correlation study and two behavioral experiments. In Study 1, 638 Chinese participants completed questionnaires on meaning in life, horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, and attitude toward meaning. Attitude toward meaning had some effect on the relationship between meaning searching and meaning presence among individualistic group members and a significant moderating effect among collectivistic group members. Next, to clarify the role of attitudes in this relationship, Study 2 ( N  = 180) compared individual attitudes toward meaning-seeking and meaning-existing stories, revealing that the Chinese participants had a more positive attitude toward the latter. In Study 3 ( N  = 499) we further compared the attitudes of participants in the individualist and collectivist groups toward stories of not searching , meaning-seeking failure , meaning-seeking success , and the ongoing search for meaning after finding it . The results showed that participants in the individualist group had a more positive attitude toward not searching for meaning, while those in the collectivist group endorsed meaning-seeking and continued search for meaning after finding it. These results illustrate for the first time that the attitude toward the search for meaning is affected not only by a collectivist or individualist country’s mainstream culture but also by each person’s preference for individualist or collectivist values.

The structural focus of linguistics has led to a static and modular treatment of meaning. Viewing language as practice allows us to transcend the boundaries of subdisciplines that deal with meaning and to integrate the social indexicality of variation into this larger system. This article presents the expression of social meaning as a continuum of decreasing reference and increasing performativity, with sociolinguistic variation at the performative extreme. The meaning potential of sociolinguistic variables in turn is based in their form and their social source, constituting a cline of ‘interiority’ from variables that index public social facts about the speaker to more internal, personal affective states.

Models that represent meaning as high-dimensional numerical vectors—such as latent semantic analysis (LSA), hyperspace analogue to language (HAL), bound encoding of the aggregate language environment (BEAGLE), topic models, global vectors (GloVe), and word2vec—have been introduced as extremely powerful machine-learning proxies for human semantic representations and have seen an explosive rise in popularity over the past 2 decades. However, despite their considerable advancements and spread in the cognitive sciences, one can observe problems associated with the adequate presentation and understanding of some of their features. Indeed, when these models are examined from a cognitive perspective, a number of unfounded arguments tend to appear in the psychological literature. In this article, we review the most common of these arguments and discuss (a) what exactly these models represent at the implementational level and their plausibility as a cognitive theory, (b) how they deal with various aspects of meaning such as polysemy or compositionality, and (c) how they relate to the debate on embodied and grounded cognition. We identify common misconceptions that arise as a result of incomplete descriptions, outdated arguments, and unclear distinctions between theory and implementation of the models. We clarify and amend these points to provide a theoretical basis for future research and discussions on vector models of semantic representation.

Distributional semantic models derive computational representations of word meaning from the patterns of co-occurrence of words in text. Such models have been a success story of computational linguistics, being able to provide reliable estimates of semantic relatedness for the many semantic tasks requiring them. However, distributional models extract meaning information exclusively from text, which is an extremely impoverished basis compared to the rich perceptual sources that ground human semantic knowledge. We address the lack of perceptual grounding of distributional models by exploiting computer vision techniques that automatically identify discrete “visual words” in images, so that the distributional representation of a word can be extended to also encompass its co-occurrence with the visual words of images it is associated with. We propose a flexible architecture to integrate text- and image-based distributional information, and we show in a set of empirical tests that our integrated model is superior to the purely text-based approach, and it provides somewhat complementary semantic information with respect to the latter.

Two aspects of meaning in life have drawn much attention in previous research: presence of meaning and search for meaning. We proposed four additional aspects concerning individuals’ thoughts and feelings about meaning in life: need for meaning, meaning confusion, meaning avoidance, and meaning anxiety. We developed items to measure these dimensions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the data fit the factors well. Convergent and discriminant validities of the four dimensions were demonstrated though their distinct patterns of correlations with other variables, such as personality traits, need satisfaction, personal aspirations, life satisfaction, anxiety and depression. Moreover, cluster analysis revealed that individuals could be divided into meaningful groups according to these dimensions, with each group demonstrating unique psychological features. Implications for future studies on meaning in life are discussed.