Glossar-English:Nomination

Sub-Item to: Sign theories: Overview

Original: Nomination

---

Nomination as an unsaturated part of propositions Suppose one asks about the pragmatics of signs. In that case, one quickly associates a combinatorial scheme similar to the one that reconstructs the pragmatic function of statements from the partial sign acts of nomination and predication. Especially in the case of images – or, more precisely, in the case of communication actions with the help of images – it is often investigated whether those partial functions might not provide a system of elementary communicative acts generating image pragmatics (cf. [Sachs-Hombach 2003a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2003): Das Bild als kommu­nika­tives Medium. Ele­mente einer allge­meinen Bild­wissen­schaft. Halem, Köln. or [Harth 2001a]Harth, Manfred (2001): Bezugnahme bei Bildern. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (Hg.), Bildhandeln: Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Pragmatik bildhafter Darstellungsformen. Halem, Köln. ). Nomination is the partial act of drawing attention to an object about which something is to be communicated; This object has to be already known to both communicative partners – existing in their shared discourse universe (cf. [Kamlah & Lorenzen 1973a]Kamlah, Wilhelm & Lorenzen, Paul (1973): Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. BI Wissenschaftsverlag, München. Nicht angezeigt: 2. Aufl. (<sup>1</sup>1967, <sup>3</sup>1996) : § 3, as well as [Gerhardus et al. 1975a]Gerhardus, Dietfried; Kledzik, Silke M. & Reitzig, Gerd H. (1975): Schlüssiges Argumentieren – Logisch-propädeutisches Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. : p. 42). The nomination is regarded as unsaturated in Frege's sense, i.e., as a real partial action that requires supplementation and cannot meaningfully occur alone. In particular, without the completion by a predication to a proposition, the mentioning of an object by the nomination would stand communicatively in empty space, so to speak. Types and requirements of nomination In connection with pointing gestures, deictic expressions – “this/these” and similar – often serve to perform the sub-action »nomination«, especially when the current communication situation and the material objects „given in it“ are meant. The function of nomination is not limited to such objects: Even with the expressions ‘the last unicorn’, ‘this idea of the beautiful’, ‘Otto von Guericke’, or ‘Harry Potter's antagonist’, we can, indeed, refer to discourse objects. In the first case, it is a definite description of a fictitious object; in the second case, a deictic description of an abstract object; in the third case, a proper name for a real object in the past; and in the fourth case, a complex nomination with proper name and describing elements for a medially invented object. Overview of the types of nomination simple deictic expressions (demonstrator) „this“, „these“ used in conjunction with a pointing gesture, no property or type specification indexical expressions „I“, „your“, „us“ result directly from the communication situation and its components; the signified must, therefore, be present; applies in particular to the communication partners themselves anaphora „it“, „she“, „him“, „them“ used without pointing action, reference to aforementioned items proper names „Ludwig“, „Mona Lisa“ conventionally (by baptism in the broadest sense) established nominators defi­nite descriptions „the unicorn“, „the injured unicorn“, „the unicorn that lost its horn“ an individuated instance of a particular type – a description of „that in the current discourse universe which you know has such and such a property“ anaphoric descriptions „his unicorn“ combination of anaphoric and descriptive nomination deictic descriptions „this unicorn“ combination of deictic and descriptive nomination; is considered the most general form from which the other forms are derived In all cases, it is crucial that the respective communication partners already know the intended objects and can distinguish them in some way from the other discourse objects currently at hand. A nomination can only be carried out successfully if it is clear which set of objects is currently available for selection, i.e., which discursive situation the communication partners are currently communicating about. For deictic forms of nomination, it is immediately apparent that this must be the utterance situation in which the interlocutors find themselves, i.e., more precisely, the objects they can (jointly) perceive there. In the general case, nominations refer to a context that is either implicitly clear or explicitly stated. Pictorial nominations How is the partial action »nomination« relevant for using images? After all, we often talk colloquially in such a way that we bring a certain object before our eyes (and mind) with the help of an image. Is it possible that nomination may even be the basic form of image use? If that were the case, the nomination would have to be the basis of every image usage. Figure 1: An example: „Was built in 1936“ For example, we do not find it unusual when someone presents a picture of a large, red-painted suspension bridge with two conspicuously designed piers (Fig. 1) and tersely remarks: „Was built in 1936.“ The pictorial sign act thus apparently takes over the role of nomination. Here, as with the purely verbal nominations, it is true that the passive discourse partners must also already understand that object as commonly known, since otherwise, they would not know to what they should refer the predication of the year of construction in the first place. The modal image theory contradicts this analysis of the example situation: In the case of the apparently nominatory image of the Golden Gate Bridge, the image instead opens a referential context with the intentional object as a (potential) figure in front of a (potential) ground. About this, the imperceptible year of construction is then predicated (under the assumption that the counterpart also visually recognizes the individual object). In fact, not the whole image is used as a nominator – the sky, the ocean, the island behind the bridge, or a boat in front of it, which may also be seen, are not addressed in this case, although in the last case, the predication given could well be usable. However, those depicted objects could also be singled out as the figure in each case on occasion (⊳ Objects of Visual Perception). Indeed, when one tries to understand image usage in terms of one of the types of nomination, a number of characteristic problems arise, each of which can underline the peculiarities of image usage. In the following, these problems are contrasted with the situation in which a corresponding linguistic form of nomination accompanies the presentation of the picture. Certainly, when one tries to understand image use in terms of one of the verbal nomination types, a number of characteristic problems arise, each of which can underline the peculiarities of image use. In the following, these problems are contrasted with the situation where a corresponding linguistic nomination accompanies the image presentation. Images and deictic or anaphoric expressions Using images in the sense of deictic expressions, e.g., instead of the utterance of ‘This!’ and together with a pointing gesture (not directed at the picture), is not really conceivable since the object meant by it would then always have to be present at the same time. In any case, one would not usually understand these acts of presentation in the sense intended here. In principle, the same applies to anaphoric nominations: They cannot be replaced by the use of pictures. Conversely, however, anaphors can be used to refer verbally to depicted objects without prior mention, just as a demonstrator with a pointing gesture in the direction of the picture can often be used for this purpose without any problems. Images and proper names In general, it is not assumed that images can function like proper names since proper names must be installed conventionally in a (more or less broadly defined) baptismal situation. On the other hand, in the case of pictures, a (more or less strong) non-conventional representational relationship is the focus of attention, at least in the core area. Conversely, proper names are factually often associated with image use, for example, in portraits, passport photos, or the depiction of well-known buildings. If image use were basically analogous to nomination by proper name, such behavior would make no sense since either the linguistic or the pictorial proper name alone would be sufficient to identify the object, or both would fail as nomination in each case. Images and descriptions On the other hand, it seems much more appropriate to use images in the sense of descriptions since a depicted object is presented primarily with the help of its visual properties. Since every description essentially refers back to a previous predication, description theories of images are often embedded in predication theories (like, e.g., Sachs-Hombach's). Accordingly, an object is identified pictorially by using its known visual characteristics. As mentioned above, however, a figurative image usually shows more than a single isolated object. As was already the case with proper names, verbal descriptions are much more likely to be used in connection with images. More precisely, descriptive noun phrases are employed to refer to objects, which have been medially introduced into the discourse universe through the image presentation, with the purpose of saying something about them. Significantly, the use of deictic descriptions is revealing in this respect: For, what does one really point to when one points to a place on an image carrier and, in doing so, uses a deictic description that identifies a depicted object? The fact that a single object, presupposed as known to the interlocutor, is meant follows from the general function of the nomination. That this intended object must be considered present, at least in some sense, follows from using the deictic particle jointly with the pointing gesture. More precisely, then, the use of the image, in this case, has the function of extending the communication situation to include objects that are not present. Accordingly, it is a context-building act in the sense of the modal image theory. Images as an independent form of nomination At present, it remains to be seen whether an utterly independent kind of nomination can be carried out with the help of image presentations, which does not correspond to the mechanisms of linguistic nominations. It would have to be a partial sign action, by which, to communicate something further about it, one moves an object already known to the other person into the common focus of attention by using neither conventionally assigned symbols nor characteristic properties, neither ostensive deixis nor previous mentioning. What objects do non-representational images identify? Under the hypothesis of a principally nominatory basic use of images, the question must also be clarified as to which objects are identified with the help of non-representational images. All in all, nomination as a fundamental form of image use does not seem very convincing (⊳ Semantics of Non-Figurative Images). Nominator, singular expression, and the subject of a sentence The verbal expressions through which a nomination is carried out are called ‘nominators’. They largely correspond to what was denoted by the older expression ‘singular terms’, contrasting ‘general terms’ (cf. [Tugendhat & Wolf 1983a]Tugendhat, Ernst & Wolf, Ursula (1983): Logisch-semantische Propädeutik. Reclam, Stuttgart. Notiz: (revid. 1986) and [Tugendhat 1976a]Tugendhat, Ernst (1976): Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die sprachanalytische Philosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. ). The expression ‘nominator’ was introduced in [Lorenz 1970a]Lorenz, Kuno (1970): Elemente der Sprachkritik – Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. : p. 214 in particular with the aim of obtaining a clearer distinction between logical and linguistic analysis. Although the subject of a sentence is usually a nomination, there are exceptions: Sentences with an impersonally used ‘it’, as in ‘it is raining’. Therefore, these do not form propositions in the strict sense. See also: Context Context-building acts Figure/ground differentiation Indication and ostentation Interaction and communication Modality Objects of visual perception Pictorial actions Predication Pragmatics, semantics, syntax Proposition Semantics of non-figurative images Sign, sign carrier, sign system

Notes Literature [Gerhardus et al. 1975a]Gerhardus, Dietfried; Kledzik, Silke M. & Reitzig, Gerd H. (1975): Schlüssiges Argumentieren – Logisch-propädeutisches Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.[Harth 2001a]Harth, Manfred (2001): Bezugnahme bei Bildern. In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (Hg.), Bildhandeln: Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zur Pragmatik bildhafter Darstellungsformen. Halem, Köln.[Kamlah & Lorenzen 1973a]Kamlah, Wilhelm & Lorenzen, Paul (1973): Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. BI Wissenschaftsverlag, München.[Lorenz 1970a]Lorenz, Kuno (1970): Elemente der Sprachkritik – Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.[Sachs-Hombach 2003a]Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2003): Das Bild als kommu­nika­tives Medium. Ele­mente einer allge­meinen Bild­wissen­schaft. Halem, Köln.[Tugendhat & Wolf 1983a]Tugendhat, Ernst & Wolf, Ursula (1983): Logisch-semantische Propädeutik. Reclam, Stuttgart.[Tugendhat 1976a]Tugendhat, Ernst (1976): Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die sprachanalytische Philosophie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. Version 1: 2013 Responsible: Schirra, Jörg R.J. Editing: Sachs-Hombach, Klaus Contributions by: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Note) Quote as: Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Nomination. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Nomination].