John F. Sowa schrieb:
> Fabian,
>
> These issues were very clearly specified over a century
> ago by CSP.
...
> CSP's original names for that triad were
> grammar, logic, and rhetoric
...
> CSP definitely used a positive term for the third branch (either
> 'rhetoric' or 'methodeutic') -- the third always involves purpose
> or intention. Following are three positive ways of looking at
> the distinction:
>
> 1. Grammar or syntax studies the forms of sentences without
> considering anything else, such as what the words refer to
> or whether the sentences are true or false.
>
> 2. Logic (or what Morris called semantics) studies the reference
> conditions and truth conditions for the symbols and sentences
> in terms of some domain of interest.
>
> 3. Rhetoric, methodeutic, or pragmatics always depends on the purpose
> or intention of what is sometimes called the "speech act".
>
> The third branch is not a leftover from the other two, because the
> first two have nothing to say about purpose or intention, and that
> is the central issue for the third branch.
>
> If you find any linguists who are confused about these issues,
> send them this note, and I'll straighten them out.
> (01)
Peirce wrote before speech act theory of the Austin-Searle kind came
into being; and, as far as I know, neither did he anticipate their
discoveries (BTW, this was done by Husserl and A. Reinach). Take a look
at the first chapter of Searle's "Expression and Meaning". I guess you
would say that Searle's five-fold distinction between assertives,
directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations belongs to
pragmatics, but it does not fit your characterization. The central issue
for Searle is not "purpose or intention", but how to classify different
structures that speech acts can have - quite independently of the
intention of the speaker. I think it would be good for logicians to
realize that not only assertives, but also directives, commissives,
expressives, and declarations allow for a kind of formal investigation.
The 'garbage can definition' of pragmatics is not a good one, and the
Peirce-Sowa definition is definitely much better, but it can be improved
on by means of speech act theory. (02)
best wishes,
Ingvar (03)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|