Christopher Menzel wrote:
> Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The only people who made up their mind are logicians: according to them
>> whatever aspect of 'meaning' they can analyze with the help of a model
>> theory is semantics, everything else is pragmatics. This is the garbage
>> can definition of "pragmatics". :-)
>>
>
> And just to muddy the waters further, a large chunk of Montague
> semantics consists of the model theoretic analysis of many linguistic
> phenomena (notably, indexicals) that had, before Montague, largely been
> consigned to the pragmatic scrapheap. Moreoever, this work is referred
> to (oxymoronically?) as "formal pragmatics".
>
> -chris
>
> (01)
Yes. There are other examples, e.g. "Dynamic Semantics" -- which is
concerned the processing of discourses, with particular emphasis on the
resolution of pronouns across different statements. I think the best
way to make sense of it is that people who call Montague Semantics and
Dynamic Semantics "semantics" embrace the garbage can definition of
"pragmatics". People who call Montague Semantics and Dynamic Semantics
"formal pragmatics" embrace the original distinction between "semantics"
and "pragmatics", but want to point out that these theories apply a
logic inspired methodology to pragmatics. (02)
-- Fabian (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|