(1983). More recently, experiments reported by Levinson (1996) have shown some interesting differences in non-
verbal spatial understanding in speakers of certain Australian and Mayan languages, compared to speakers of
European languages; the differences appear to be related to the way these languages encode spatial relations, thus
offering support to a limited version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. (Li and Gleitman 2000 disputes even these
modest results, though.)
The upshot is that the character of thought may be to some limited extent affected by the proclivities of its interface
with different languages: certain thoughts may be more easily accessible because one's language makes it easier to
expressthem. Sucha conclusion isstillcompatiblewiththerebeing nospecificlevelof linguisticsemantics. Rather,again,
the language-specific character of a speaker's concepts, such as it is, is a consequence of the language-specificinterface
between syntax/phonology and meaning—including the lexicon.
To su mup our discussion of the ecological niche for specifically linguistic semantics in the f-mind: there is such a
niche, but not as a separate level of structure. Distinctions like“logical/non-logical”and“dictionary/encyclopedia”
seem impossible to draw, and don't appear to make any useful functional distinction in an account of the f-mind.
Rather, linguistic semantics per se is the study of the interface between conceptualization and linguistic form
(phonology and syntax). It therefore studies the organizations of conceptualization that can be expressed or invoked
by language. In particular,lexicalsemantics studies the organizations of conceptualization that can be bundled up in a
singleword(or tobeclearer,inan interface rulewhoseotherendis a morpheme).But allsuch workcan be pursued in
theframeworkofa functional architecture simplylikeFigure 9.1, wherethereis nolevelof“strictlylinguisticmeaning”
intervening between linguistic for mand concepts.