Glossar-English:Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Glossar der Bildphilosophie
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen
Joerg R.J. Schirra (Diskussion | Beiträge)
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
K Textersetzung - „{{GlosTab5-E}}↵<bib.*<\/bib>“ durch „{{GlosTab5-E}}“
 
(12 dazwischenliegende Versionen von 2 Benutzern werden nicht angezeigt)
Zeile 5: Zeile 5:
[[Kategorie:Unterpunkt]]
[[Kategorie:Unterpunkt]]
[[Kategorie:Zeichentheorien: Übersicht]]
[[Kategorie:Zeichentheorien: Übersicht]]
Sub-Item of: [[Zeichentheorien: Übersicht|Sign Theories: Overview]]
[[Kategorie:Übersetzung]]
[[Kategorie:English]]
Sub-Item to: [[Glossar-English:Sign theories: Overview|Sign Theories: Overview]]


Original: [[Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax]]
Original: [[Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax]]
Zeile 13: Zeile 15:
<!--Ab hier: eigentlicher Inhalt; Überschriften gegebenenfalls anpassen-->
<!--Ab hier: eigentlicher Inhalt; Überschriften gegebenenfalls anpassen-->
==A ‘divide et impera’ proposal for semiotics==
==A ‘divide et impera’ proposal for semiotics==
In order to break down the complexity of studying signs to a more manageable level,<ref>Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule Wikipedia: Divide and rule].</ref> Charles W. Morris (<bib id='Morris 1938a'></bib>, <bib id='Morris  1946a'></bib>) introduced a division of semiotics into three areas, which he called ‘syntactics’, ‘semantics’ and ‘pragmatics’. [2]<ref>Cf. [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Morris#Die_Einteilung_der_Semiotik_in_Syntaktik_-_Semantik_-_Pragmatik Wikipedia: Charles W. Morris: Die Ein&shy;teilung der Semio&shy;tik in Syntak&shy;tik - Seman&shy;tik - Pragma&shy;tik].</ref> It should be possible to work on the questions in one area largely independently of the other areas: namely concerning aspects of the sign ''carrier'', the ''meaning'', or the ''use'' of the sign. However, this assumption of independence could not be confirmed. In general, it is not possible (apart from special cases) to formulate relationships of meaning independently of aspects of the use of signs, nor can the identity of sign carriers be meaningfully determined without knowledge of their meanings.  
In order to break down the complexity of studying signs to a more manageable level,<ref>Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule Wikipedia: Divide and rule].</ref> Charles W. Morris (<bib id='Morris 1938a'></bib>, <bib id='Morris  1946a'></bib>) introduced a division of semiotics into three areas, which he called ‘syntactics’, ‘semantics’ and ‘pragmatics’.<ref>Cf. [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Morris#Die_Einteilung_der_Semiotik_in_Syntaktik_-_Semantik_-_Pragmatik Wikipedia: Charles W. Morris: Die Ein&shy;teilung der Semio&shy;tik in Syntak&shy;tik - Seman&shy;tik - Pragma&shy;tik].</ref> It should be possible to work on the questions in one area largely independently of the other areas: namely concerning aspects of the sign ''carrier'', the ''meaning'', or the ''use'' of the sign. However, this assumption of independence could not be confirmed. In general, it is impossible (apart from exceptional cases) to formulate relationships of meaning independently of aspects of the use of signs, nor can the identity of sign carriers be meaningfully determined without knowledge of their meanings.  
:
:
Nonetheless, Morris's proposal for the classification of semiotic levels of investigation has not only survived – albeit in a modified form – it even dominates current semiotic undertakings in one or another modified form. However, the term ‘syntactics’ is mostly (and following Ferdinand de Saussure) replaced by ‘syntax’.
Nonetheless, Morris's proposal for classifying semiotic levels of investigation has not only survived, but it even dominates current semiotic undertakings in one or another modified form. However, the term ‘syntactics’ is mostly (and following Ferdinand de Saussure) replaced by ‘syntax’.
:
:
In sign theories based on action theory, the three areas are now understood as questions of different scopes on aspects of [[Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem|sign (systems)]] that stand in a ''hierarchical'' relation to each other. The most comprehensive, pragmatic investigation deals with the complex of communication and other related actions, ie the embedding of the sign action in the life practice of the sign user. More restrictive in its subject area, semantics brings up the relationships between the sign carrier and what is represented that are relevant to the use of the sign, without considering the sign action as a whole – insofar as that is possible. Strictly speaking, syntactic investigations only deal with the relationships that exist between the sign carriers of a sign system, ie with relations between and properties of (physical) objects that (can) be used as signs.
In sign theories based on action theory, the three areas are now understood as questions of different scopes on aspects of [[Glossar-English:Sign, Sign Carrier, Sign System|sign systems]] that stand in a ''hierarchical'' relation to each other. In the most comprehensive sense, pragmatic investigation deals with the complex of communication and other related actions, i.e., the embedding of the sign action in the life practice of the sign users. More restrictive in its subject area, semantics brings up the relationships between the sign carrier and what is represented that are relevant to the use of the sign, without considering the sign action as a whole – insofar as that is possible. Finally, syntactic investigations deal, strictly speaking, merely with the relationships between the sign carriers of a sign system, i.e., with relations between and properties of (physical) objects that can be used as signs.




Zeile 23: Zeile 25:


===Pragmatics===
===Pragmatics===
The questions examined within pragmatics can be exemplified as follows: [3]<ref> See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics Wikipedia: Pragma&shy;tics (Lingu&shy;istics)] or <bib id='Levinson 1983a'></bib>.</ref> Which other actions are related to the considered sign action – which ones can or must have preceded, and which ones can or must follow? That, for example, the utterance of an assertion can either be answered directly by the communication partner accepting it (explicitly or tacitly) or communicatively rejecting it with an act of doubt (and thus demanding justification actions of his counterpart), or less directly by first using his sensorimotor equipment performs a suitable referential anchoring of the assertion and thus an empirical verification of what is asserted is all part of this [[Illokution|''language game'']] of assertion. It is, therefore, both other sign actions (or more generally: [[Interaktion und Kommunikation|communicative interactions]]) and non-communicative actions - in particular, the sensorimotor handling of the signed – that must be taken into account here.
The questions examined within pragmatics can be exemplified as follows:<ref> See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics Wikipedia: Pragma&shy;tics (Lingu&shy;istics)] or <bib id='Levinson 1983a'></bib>.</ref> Which other actions are related to the considered sign act – which ones can or must have preceded, and which ones can or must follow? That, for example, the utterance of an assertion can either be answered directly by the communication partner accepting it (explicitly or tacitly) or communicatively rejecting it with an act of doubt (and, thus, demanding justification actions of his counterpart) or less directly by first using his sensorimotor equipment to perform a suitable referential anchoring of the assertion and, thus, accomplish an empirical verification of what is asserted, all that is part of this [[Illokution|''language game'']] of assertion. It is, therefore, both other sign actions (or, more generally, [[Glossar-English:Interaction and Communication|communicative interactions]]) and non-communicative acts – in particular, the sensorimotor handling of the signed – that must be taken into account here.
:
:
The situational embedding of the action of the sign plays a central role in pragmatic considerations: its [[Kontext|context]] of use. This is of particular importance for all deictic sign elements,<ref>See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis Wikipedia: Deixis] or <bib id='Sennholz 1985a'></bib>.</ref> in which the corporeality of the sign user usually comes into play in a special way.
The situational embedding of the sign act plays a central role in pragmatic considerations: its [[Glossar-English:Context|context]] of use. That is of particular importance for all deictic sign elements,<ref>See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis Wikipedia: Deixis] or <bib id='Sennholz 1985a'></bib>.</ref> in which the corporeality of the sign user usually comes into play in a unique way.
:
:
Interpreted in terms of action theory as aspects of actions, the cognitive and intentional moments of the sign user [5 ]<ref>This action-theoretical reinterpretation of mental phenomena is dealt with in more detail in <bib id='Ros 1979a'></bib>.</ref> that are directly associated with the sign actions also belong in the focus of attention of pragmatics: This applies in particular to the presuppositions associated with the use of signs and the conclusions induced by them (‹implicatures›).<ref>Cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition Wikipedia: Presupposition] and <bib id='Kempson 1975a'></bib>; also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature Wikipedia: Implicature] and <bib id='Grice 1970a'></bib>.</ref>
Interpreted in terms of action theory as aspects of actions, the cognitive and intentional moments of the sign user<ref>This action-theoretical reinterpretation of mental phenomena is dealt with in more detail in <bib id='Ros 1979a'></bib>.</ref> that are directly associated with the sign acts also belong in the focus of attention of pragmatics. That applies in particular to the presuppositions associated with the use of signs and the conclusions induced by them (‹implicatures›).<ref>Cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition Wikipedia: Presupposition] and <bib id='Kempson 1975a'></bib>; also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature Wikipedia: Implicature] and <bib id='Grice 1970a'></bib>.</ref>
:
:
The network of actions that occur in a systematic connection with the presentation of an image (conceived as a sign) can also be examined in a corresponding manner (⊳ [[Bildpragmatik|Image Pragmatics]]).
The network of actions that occur in a systematic connection with the presentation of an image (conceived as a sign) can also be examined in a corresponding manner (⊳ [[Glossar-English:Image Pragmatics|Image Pragmatics]]).


===Semantics===
===Semantics===
For a long time, semantics was at the center of semiotics, since phenomena of meaning provided its most important object of investigation. [7]<ref> See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Wikipedia: Seman&shy;tics] (also: <bib id='Katz & Fodor 1963a'></bib>) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_semantics Genera&shy;tive seman&shy;tics] (also <bib id='Lakoff 1972a'></bib>).</ref> Under the assumption that meaning relations are primary, while their communicative use is secondary, pragmatic considerations are subordinate to semantics.
For a long time, semantics was at the center of semiotics since the phenomena of meaning provided its most important object of investigation.<ref> See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Wikipedia: Seman&shy;tics] (also: <bib id='Katz & Fodor 1963a'></bib>) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_semantics Genera&shy;tive seman&shy;tics] (also <bib id='Lakoff 1972a'></bib>).</ref> Under the assumption that meaning relations are primary, while their communicative use is secondary, pragmatic considerations are subordinate to semantics.
:
:
The pragmatic turn of the [[Linguistic turn, pictorial turn, medial turn|linguistic turn]] has reversed this dominance relationship: Here it is true that phenomena of meaning can only be viewed within a communicative framework (in the broad sense). They always remain related to the behavior of those communicating, so that the connection between the sign carrier and the signified can be determined in particular through the actions of the sign users among themselves relative to the signified.<ref> Cf. for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn Wikipedia: Linguistic turn], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act Wikipedia: Speech act], and <bib id='Davidson 2001a'></bib>. </ref>
The pragmatic turn of the [[Linguistic turn, pictorial turn, medial turn|linguistic turn]] has reversed this relationship of dominance: Here, it is true that phenomena of meaning can only be viewed within a communicative framework (in the broad sense). They always remain related to the behavior of those communicating so that the connection between the sign carrier and the signified can be determined, in particular, through the actions of the sign users among themselves relative to the signified.<ref> Cf., for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn Wikipedia: Linguistic turn], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act Wikipedia: Speech act], and <bib id='Davidson 2001a'></bib>. </ref>
:
:
Typical semantic questions concern the nature of possible relationships of meaning. In addition to the ''behaviorist'' view mentioned in the previous section, a distinction is made between ''mentalistic'' and ''realistic'' theories of meaning – depending on whether meaning is constituted from behavior, from mental phenomena, or from a direct, purely physical (if not metaphysical) relationship between the sign carrier and the signified. The latter two tend towards semiotic concepts in which semantics dominates the pragmatic aspects.
Typical semantic questions concern the nature of possible relationships of meaning. In addition to the ''behaviorist'' view mentioned in the previous section, a distinction is made between ''mentalistic'' and ''realistic'' theories of meaning – depending on whether meaning is constituted from behavior, from mental phenomena, or from a direct, purely physical (if not metaphysical) relationship between the sign carrier and the signified. The latter two tend towards semiotic concepts in which semantics dominates the pragmatic aspects.
Zeile 40: Zeile 42:
Irrespective of which of the three semantic views mentioned is pursued, a distinction should be made between an extensionalist perspective – i.e., one related to the [[Referenz|referential]] scope – and an intensionalist perspective – one related to content characterizations: Extensional aspects are pursued in reference-semantic approaches.
Irrespective of which of the three semantic views mentioned is pursued, a distinction should be made between an extensionalist perspective – i.e., one related to the [[Referenz|referential]] scope – and an intensionalist perspective – one related to content characterizations: Extensional aspects are pursued in reference-semantic approaches.
:
:
Peirce's tripartition of [[Symbol, Index, Ikon|index, icon, and symbol]], which breaks down the relation between sign carrier and signified according to causality,  [[Ähnlichkeit|similarity]], and conventionality, is also essentially semantic.<ref>Since Peirce always thinks of the sign as triadic and he makes the classification of a sign as an icon, index, or symbol dependent on a corresponding interpretation process, the three sign classes are always already in a pragmatic frame of reference (<bib id='Peirce 1983a'></bib>).</ref> Although iconicity is particularly closely linked to the relationship of meaning in images, the other aspects also play a role that cannot be neglected (⊳ [[Bildsemantik|image semantics]]).
Peirce's tripartition of [[Symbol, Index, Ikon|index, icon, and symbol]], which breaks down the relation between sign carrier and signified according to causality,  [[Ähnlichkeit|similarity]], and conventionality, is also essentially semantic.<ref>Since Peirce always thinks of the sign as triadic and he makes the classification of a sign as an icon, index, or symbol dependent on a corresponding interpretation process, the three sign classes are always already in a pragmatic frame of reference (<bib id='Peirce 1983a'></bib>).</ref> Although iconicity is particularly closely linked to the relationship of meaning in images, the other aspects also play a role that cannot be neglected (⊳ [[Glossar-English:Image Semantics|Image Semantics]]).


===Syntactics / Syntax ===
===Syntactics / Syntax ===
Since both aspects of the use and the meaning of sign carriers are to be disregarded, syntactical questions remain limited to the structure of sign carriers and the relations between them. [10]<ref>See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax Wikipedia: Syntax], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(linguistics) Wikipedia: Morphology], and <bib id='Dürscheid 2010a'></bib>.</ref> Since sign carriers (and thus also image carriers) are essentially characterized by their physical properties, (groups of) physical properties and their relationships to each other are the focus of interest. Syntactic considerations primarily concern the identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the sign carrier.
Since both aspects of the use and the meaning of sign carriers are to be disregarded, syntactical questions remain limited to the structure of sign carriers and the relations between them.<ref>See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax Wikipedia: Syntax], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(linguistics) Wikipedia: Morphology], and <bib id='Dürscheid 2010a'></bib>.</ref> Since sign carriers (and thus also image carriers) are essentially characterized by their physical properties, (groups of) physical properties and their relationships to each other are the focus of interest. Syntactic considerations primarily concern the identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the sign carriers.
:
:
If images are viewed as signs, the image-syntactic questions of identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the image carriers arise analogously (⊳ [[Bildsyntax|Image Syntax]]).
Analogously, the image-syntactic questions of identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the image carriers arise if images are viewed as signs (⊳ [[Glossar-English:Image Syntax|Image Syntax]]).


{{GlossarSiehe}}
{{GlossarSieheE}}
* [[Ähnlichkeit]]
* [[Körper|Body]]
* [[Bildpragmatik]]
* [[Glossar-English:Context|Context]]
* [[Bildsemantik]]
* [[Illokution|Illocution]]
* [[Bildsyntax]]
* [[Glossar-English:Image Pragmatics|Image pragmatics]]
* [[Illokution]]
* [[Glossar-English:Image Semantics|Image semantics]]
* [[Interaktion und Kommunikation]]
* [[Glossar-English:Image Syntax|Image syntax]]
* [[Kontext]]
* [[Glossar-English:Interaction and Communication|Interaction and communication]]
* [[Körper]]
* [[Linguistic turn, pictorial turn, medial turn]]
* [[Linguistic turn, pictorial turn, medial turn]]
* [[Referenz]]
* [[Referenz|Reference]]
* [[Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem]]
* [[Glossar-English:Sign, Sign Carrier, Sign System|Sign, sign carrier, sign system]]
* [[Ähnlichkeit|Similarity]]


<!--den folgenden Befehl, der die drei rechten Kästen einfügt, nicht verändern-->
<!--den folgenden Befehl, der die drei rechten Kästen einfügt, nicht verändern-->
Zeile 76: Zeile 78:
* [[Benutzer:Mark A. Halawa|Halawa, Mark]]
* [[Benutzer:Mark A. Halawa|Halawa, Mark]]
{{GlosTab5-E}}
{{GlosTab5-E}}
<bib id='Schirra 2013g-w'></bib>
<!--den Schluß nicht verändern-->
<!--den Schluß nicht verändern-->
{{GlosEndB}}
{{GlosEndB}}
<!--Das war's-->
<!--Das war's-->

Aktuelle Version vom 22. Januar 2024, 13:59 Uhr

Sub-Item to: Sign Theories: Overview

Original: Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax


A ‘divide et impera’ proposal for semiotics

In order to break down the complexity of studying signs to a more manageable level,[1] Charles W. Morris ([Morris 1938a]Morris, Charles W. (1938): Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Nicht angezeigt: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, I.2
, [Morris 1946a]Morris, Charles W. (1946): Signs, Language, and Behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York.
) introduced a division of semiotics into three areas, which he called ‘syntactics’, ‘semantics’ and ‘pragmatics’.[2] It should be possible to work on the questions in one area largely independently of the other areas: namely concerning aspects of the sign carrier, the meaning, or the use of the sign. However, this assumption of independence could not be confirmed. In general, it is impossible (apart from exceptional cases) to formulate relationships of meaning independently of aspects of the use of signs, nor can the identity of sign carriers be meaningfully determined without knowledge of their meanings.

Nonetheless, Morris's proposal for classifying semiotic levels of investigation has not only survived, but it even dominates current semiotic undertakings in one or another modified form. However, the term ‘syntactics’ is mostly (and following Ferdinand de Saussure) replaced by ‘syntax’.

In sign theories based on action theory, the three areas are now understood as questions of different scopes on aspects of sign systems that stand in a hierarchical relation to each other. In the most comprehensive sense, pragmatic investigation deals with the complex of communication and other related actions, i.e., the embedding of the sign action in the life practice of the sign users. More restrictive in its subject area, semantics brings up the relationships between the sign carrier and what is represented that are relevant to the use of the sign, without considering the sign action as a whole – insofar as that is possible. Finally, syntactic investigations deal, strictly speaking, merely with the relationships between the sign carriers of a sign system, i.e., with relations between and properties of (physical) objects that can be used as signs.


Exemplary questions in the three areas

Pragmatics

The questions examined within pragmatics can be exemplified as follows:[3] Which other actions are related to the considered sign act – which ones can or must have preceded, and which ones can or must follow? That, for example, the utterance of an assertion can either be answered directly by the communication partner accepting it (explicitly or tacitly) or communicatively rejecting it with an act of doubt (and, thus, demanding justification actions of his counterpart) or less directly by first using his sensorimotor equipment to perform a suitable referential anchoring of the assertion and, thus, accomplish an empirical verification of what is asserted, all that is part of this language game of assertion. It is, therefore, both other sign actions (or, more generally, communicative interactions) and non-communicative acts – in particular, the sensorimotor handling of the signed – that must be taken into account here.

The situational embedding of the sign act plays a central role in pragmatic considerations: its context of use. That is of particular importance for all deictic sign elements,[4] in which the corporeality of the sign user usually comes into play in a unique way.

Interpreted in terms of action theory as aspects of actions, the cognitive and intentional moments of the sign user[5] that are directly associated with the sign acts also belong in the focus of attention of pragmatics. That applies in particular to the presuppositions associated with the use of signs and the conclusions induced by them (‹implicatures›).[6]

The network of actions that occur in a systematic connection with the presentation of an image (conceived as a sign) can also be examined in a corresponding manner (⊳ Image Pragmatics).

Semantics

For a long time, semantics was at the center of semiotics since the phenomena of meaning provided its most important object of investigation.[7] Under the assumption that meaning relations are primary, while their communicative use is secondary, pragmatic considerations are subordinate to semantics.

The pragmatic turn of the linguistic turn has reversed this relationship of dominance: Here, it is true that phenomena of meaning can only be viewed within a communicative framework (in the broad sense). They always remain related to the behavior of those communicating so that the connection between the sign carrier and the signified can be determined, in particular, through the actions of the sign users among themselves relative to the signified.[8]

Typical semantic questions concern the nature of possible relationships of meaning. In addition to the behaviorist view mentioned in the previous section, a distinction is made between mentalistic and realistic theories of meaning – depending on whether meaning is constituted from behavior, from mental phenomena, or from a direct, purely physical (if not metaphysical) relationship between the sign carrier and the signified. The latter two tend towards semiotic concepts in which semantics dominates the pragmatic aspects.

Irrespective of which of the three semantic views mentioned is pursued, a distinction should be made between an extensionalist perspective – i.e., one related to the referential scope – and an intensionalist perspective – one related to content characterizations: Extensional aspects are pursued in reference-semantic approaches.

Peirce's tripartition of index, icon, and symbol, which breaks down the relation between sign carrier and signified according to causality, similarity, and conventionality, is also essentially semantic.[9] Although iconicity is particularly closely linked to the relationship of meaning in images, the other aspects also play a role that cannot be neglected (⊳ Image Semantics).

Syntactics / Syntax

Since both aspects of the use and the meaning of sign carriers are to be disregarded, syntactical questions remain limited to the structure of sign carriers and the relations between them.[10] Since sign carriers (and thus also image carriers) are essentially characterized by their physical properties, (groups of) physical properties and their relationships to each other are the focus of interest. Syntactic considerations primarily concern the identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the sign carriers.

Analogously, the image-syntactic questions of identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the image carriers arise if images are viewed as signs (⊳ Image Syntax).

Notes
  1. ↑ Cf. Wikipedia: Divide and rule.
  2. ↑ Cf. Wikipedia: Charles W. Morris: Die Ein­teilung der Semio­tik in Syntak­tik - Seman­tik - Pragma­tik.
  3. ↑ See also Wikipedia: Pragma­tics (Lingu­istics) or [Levinson 1983a]Levinson, Stephen C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    .
  4. ↑ See Wikipedia: Deixis or [Sennholz 1985a]Sennholz, Klaus (1985): Grundzüge der Deixis. Brockmeyer, Bochum
    .
  5. ↑ This action-theoretical reinterpretation of mental phenomena is dealt with in more detail in [Ros 1979a]Ros, Arno (1979): Objektkonstitution und elementare Sprachhandlungsbegriffe. Hain, Königstein/Ts.
    .
  6. ↑ Cf. Wikipedia: Presupposition and [Kempson 1975a]Kempson, Ruth (1975): Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    ; also Wikipedia: Implicature and [Grice 1970a]Grice, Herbert Paul (1970): Logic and Conversation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
    .
  7. ↑ See also Wikipedia: Seman­tics (also: [Katz & Fodor 1963a]Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1963): The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39, 2.
    ) and Genera­tive seman­tics (also [Lakoff 1972a]Lakoff , George (1972): On Generative Semantics. In: Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (Hg.), Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    ).
  8. ↑ Cf., for example, Wikipedia: Linguistic turn, Wikipedia: Speech act, and [Davidson 2001a]Davidson, Donald (2001): Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Clarendon, Oxford.
    .
  9. ↑ Since Peirce always thinks of the sign as triadic and he makes the classification of a sign as an icon, index, or symbol dependent on a corresponding interpretation process, the three sign classes are always already in a pragmatic frame of reference ([Peirce 1983a]Peirce, Charles S. (1983): Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.
    Nicht angezeigt: hg. u. übers. v. Helmut Pape
    ).
  10. ↑ See also Wikipedia: Syntax, Wikipedia: Morphology, and [Dürscheid 2010a]Dürscheid, Christa (2010): Syntax. Grundlagen und Theorien. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen
    Nicht angezeigt: UTB Sprachwissenschaften 3319
    .
Literature
[Davidson 2001a]Davidson, Donald (2001): Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Clarendon, Oxford.[Dürscheid 2010a]Dürscheid, Christa (2010): Syntax. Grundlagen und Theorien. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen [Grice 1970a]Grice, Herbert Paul (1970): Logic and Conversation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.[Katz & Fodor 1963a]Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1963): The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39, 2.[Kempson 1975a]Kempson, Ruth (1975): Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Lakoff 1972a]Lakoff , George (1972): On Generative Semantics. In: Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (Hg.), Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Levinson 1983a]Levinson, Stephen C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Morris 1938a]Morris, Charles W. (1938): Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Morris 1946a]Der Eintrag existiert noch nicht.[Peirce 1983a]Peirce, Charles S. (1983): Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.[Ros 1979a]Ros, Arno (1979): Objektkonstitution und elementare Sprachhandlungsbegriffe. Hain, Königstein/Ts.[Sennholz 1985a]Sennholz, Klaus (1985): Grundzüge der Deixis. Brockmeyer, Bochum

Version 1: 2013

Responsible:

Editing:

Contributions by: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Note)

Quote as:

Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Pragmatics,_Semantics,_Syntax].