The relationship between language and meaning has intrigued not only researchers focused on language but also many philosophers throughout the history of thought. Where do the meanings behind linguistic labels reside? Are they independent of human cognition? Are these meanings defined with precise boundaries and exist as truths in themselves, as in Plato’s realm of ideas?

The exploration of ideas on meaning within the field of philosophy exceeds the scope of this study. Therefore, only the fundamental ideas of Plato and Aristotle will be discussed here. The selection of these two philosophers is due to the fundamental distinction they present. Both philosophers considered the formation and determination of meaning to be independent of the human body and cognition. However, they differ in their views on the location of meaning.

Plato positioned meaning in the realm of ideas, claiming that neither nature nor human bodies and cognition have any influence over it. According to Plato, meaning exists as a truth in the world of ideas, and linguistic labels are given by those who discover these ideas. These name-givers, Plato argues, do not assign meanings based on their bodily experiences or natural surroundings, but rather by discovering the inherent meanings in the realm of ideas.

Aristotle, however, brought meaning down to the level of the world, proposing that meaning is inherent in objects and that names—or, more contemporarily, words—are assigned by society. Aristotle’s view of meaning is that it is intrinsic to the object itself, much like Plato, leaving no role for the human body or experience. What is more significant is that many schools of thought in linguistics are built on Aristotelian logic. In linguistics, words are considered arbitrary, a view that aligns more with Aristotle than with Plato. Additionally, Aristotelian classical category theory dominated linguistic thought, particularly up until the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics. The underlying idea in this theory is that the meaning inherent in objects form categories independent of the human body and experience. Thus, for a creature to be classified as a "BIRD," it must possess all the necessary and sufficient features that define what it means to be a bird.

In subsequent research, it has been proven that the body plays a significant role in the formation of concepts. Thinkers raised questions, some of which are crucial for understanding  this progression, and these questions influenced the process of recognising this role. For example, the Sorites paradox, which questions the boundary of the word "heap," demonstrates the flexibility of meaning boundaries. The paradox asks: At what point does a heap become a heap when grains of sand are added? Three grains of sand are not considered a heap, five grains are not considered a heap, but a million grains are. So, at what point did it become a heap? These questions illustrate the fluidity of meaning boundaries.

Another significant theory regarding the boundaries of meaning and how one enters these boundaries emerged during Wittgenstein’s later period. According to Wittgenstein’s theory, which arose from his observation of the blurred boundaries of the "Game" category, it is not necessary for a linguistic label to possess all the required and sufficient features to enter the category, as claimed by classical category theory. Instead, categories are formed through family resemblance. Just as family members do not all look exactly alike but share certain similarities, a game does not need to share all the features of other games to be classified as a "Game"; it only needs to share some features.

Eleanor Rosch’s (1973) prototype category theory and the subsequent research that developed around it represent significant steps in understanding category boundaries and membership. Cognitive linguists, working within the interdisciplinary framework of cognitive science, have emphasised the role of the body in defining the boundaries of meanings behind linguistic labels and have examined these boundaries through bodily movements and perceptual limits. Image schemas, conceptual metaphors, and prototype categories are studies that shed light on the role of the body in meaning formation within the framework of embodied cognition theory. Thus, meaning is neither an untouchable truth in the realm of ideas nor an intrinsic property of objects that exists independently. Meaning is created where nature does not draw clear boundaries, through shared bodies and cultures.