Many thanks, John. See below ... (01)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rick,
>
> About 800 years ago, the scholastics divided the "language arts"
> in three parts: Grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Peirce elaborated
> that subdivision with further explanation, and he made the point
> that the role of logic is to determine "the formal conditions
> of the truth of propositions." That is essentially the scope of
> a Tarski-style model theory. (02)
Ok, understood. (03)
> In the 1930s, partly under the influence of Peirce and partly
> under the influence of the behaviorists, Charles Morris renamed
> the three traditional subdivisions syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. (04)
Just so I understand Marris's use of the term pragmatics, how, if at
all, did Morris precisely differentiate Peirce's dynamical object from
Peirce's definition of pragmaticism in his classification ? (05)
> The analytic philosophers picked up those terms, interpreted the
> middle term along the lines of Tarski's model theory, and didn't
> have a clear idea of what to do about pragmatics. (06)
I see. This speaks volumes about how one might classify semantics,
semiotics and pragmaticism. And here by pragmaticism I mean the
practical bearing of an individual's conception of an object, where
practical bearing implies convergence on meaning through exchange or
interaction. (07)
> RM> I had previously referenced this paper ...
> >
> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~soames/forthcoming_papers/Truth_and_Meaning.pdf
> >
> > and wondered whether anyone was interested in sharing their thoughts ?
>
> My major complaint about it is that rhetoric or pragmatics is a
> very important part of meaning. In fact, I would say it is the
> essential goal of any utterance, and syntax and logic are just
> means to get the pragmatics across to the intended audience.
> I was disappointed that the author didn't focus on pragmatics. (08)
Same here. But I suspect Soames would have to be overly ambitious to
develop Tarski semantics through a theory of semiotics into pragmaticism
in one paper. (09)
BTW - My two favorite books this summer were Roland Barthes's
Mythologies and Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. Mythologies was
a gem on every page and Simulacra was a chore. But, once I set aside
Baudriallard's nihilism, his message became quite clear. (010)
> One could say a lot more, but I would prefer to address related
> issues in a different way. Following are some slides I presented
> in July. The last slide has pointers to further reading, including
> an article by the same title:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/pursuing.pdf
> Pursuing the goal of language understanding (011)
Thanks, I'll give this another read. (012)
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|