Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
> Ingvar Johansson wrote:
>>> If I understood him well, Ingvar's distinction (whether it was his
>>> original one or not) between sentence meaning and used sentence meaning
>>> may be the right thing to mention here. Following that distinction
>>> (Ingvar, please correct me if I go wrong),
>> Yes, you are going wrong. To me, you are using the term 'sentence' in
>> such a sense that it can designate only purely oral or graphical
> The constraint to oral or graphical entities is not necessary. Gestures
> etc. can well be parts of an expression. A sentence is whatever you
> wish to see as a complete form of expression, but it gains meaning only
> when it is interpreted. In this sense, a sentence is not more than
> data, which is turned into information when the sentence is interpreted
> (according to the rules of the (assumed) language and the situation it
> is expressed in).
> You may not like this view, of course.
No problem. That's one way of using 'sentence', but I used it in another
>> which then in different contexts get different meanings.
> Yes, this is what I meant.
>> is not what I meant by 'sentence meaning'. I took the context of an
>> English language community for given (in the sense Pat has done in
>> another answer to you).
> So sentence meaning is that meaning which is the default when no
> contextual information is available? That is, "Pat is sleeping" means
> (simply) that an individual named 'Pat' is sleeping (how about the time?);
Yes (and the time is an undetermined 'now'). (04)
>> What happens in the move from 'sentence meaning'
>> to 'used sentence meaning' (in the cases under discussion) is that an
>> *assertive force* is added to a merely entertained semantic content;
> and when one knows that the sentence is spoken out by that Pat's wife
> and that she worries about one being too loud so as to wake him up, "Pat
> is sleeping" has the used meaning of "Do not make noises" or the like.
In Austin's famous tripartite terminology
(locutionary-illocutionary-perlocutionary) mixed with mine, your example
comes out as follows. The utterance "Pat is sleeping" made by Pat's wife
is an assertive 'illocutionary act' (and has 'used sentence meaning');
it is made by means of the 'sentence meaning' of the expression 'Pat is
sleeping' (this is its 'locutionary content'); and it is intended to
have the function or 'perlocutionary effect' of making the hearers
abstain from making too much noise. That is, "do not make noises" have
neither with the locutionary (sentence meaning) nor with the
illocutionary (used sentence meaning) aspect to do, but only with the
> But the difference between these cases does not seem to me substantial;
> it is rather in how much the assumed context is seen as normal, close
> to the default. In the first case above, no context is explicit, and so
> the base assumption is that "Pat is sleeping" should be interpreted in
> the way most of English speakers would interpret it with no additional
> information given.
>> think of Frege's assertion sign if you are not familiar with speech act
> I'll try to think, but it may be difficult.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)