[lit-ideas] Bühleriana
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:09:07 EDT
From:
http://biolinguistic.yolasite.com/prominent-scholars/karl-b-hler-1879-1963-
I intend to comment, briefly, as I mediate into tomorrow, which is another
day,
on Buehler, Popper, and Grice:
"The three main functions of language Bühler distinguishes in his organon
model are Darstellung (representation, of states of affairs), Ausdruck
(expression, of the sender’s feelings), and Appell (appeal, to the receiver)."
So, repeat:
darstellung -- representation, as in Schopenhauer, World as WILL
(Volition) and Representation (Belief)
I think 'dar', is cognate with 'there'. Stellung, with 'stay'.
---
ausdruck, we have the aus, which is the OUT. As in OUTERance, utterance.
The druck I'm never sure what is. Express does not seem to 'express' this.
And why should it be of just the sender's FEELINGS? Surely I can express my
belief ("I believe in God", or "I believe that it is raining"). Rather
Grice here has 'exhibitive' -- all moves are exhibitive; some are further
protreptic, or of the persuasive type ("I believe in God, and you should
too").
The 'appell' is more like a fallacy "ad misericordiam" and stuff. There's
ALWAYS appeal. No communication is gratutitious like that -- no such thing
as a free lunch.
---- "appeal" can be 'ambiguous', as in sex-appeal, or appeal to a
tribunal.
--- And so on.
The online piece linked above goes on:
"All functions exist in every single utterance. However, usually one
prevails. When the focus is on the feelings of the sender, the expressive
function of communication dominates. An object-oriented communication is very
neutral or representative. If the focus is on the receiver, we deal with an
appeal. The circle in the middle of the illustration above symbolizes the
concrete, sensibly given sound. The overlapping triangle symbolizes meaning of
the sound and its Gestalt-like features. In those places where the circle
is bigger than the triangle, the sound (circle) contains information that
lacks meaning (triangle). Where the triangle is bigger than the circle,
there is a meaning (triangle) lacking an expression in sound (circle). Both
phenomena occur all the time in every day’s communication. The linguistic sign
itself is a symptom, a signal, or a symbol."
So we are getting Peircean here:
"If it is a symptom, it reveals the interiority or consciousness of the
sender. If the sign is a signal, it is directed to the behavior of the
receiver. Signs that are mere bearer of information about the states of
affairs
are symbols, just representing the objects themselves."
While Peirce whom Grice studied played with this, as did Cassirer, we
Griceians are never convinced enough that 'symbol' is a separate category.
It's
TOO Greek (sumbollein) and we already respect 'seme' into the scheme. So
what makes a semeion a symbol? Since no Greek ever considered this question,
why should we?
The entry concludes:
"Roman Jakobson expanded Bühler’s model and assumes six functions of
language, adding the poetic, phatic, and metalingual function to Bühler’s
three
functions. Karl Popper, who was a student of Bühler’s in Vienna, proposes
an additional argumentative function."
As he would.
There's a recent PhD dissertation I saw online on Grice and dialogue logic
-- so Popper has a point. In that 'arguing' is usually a conversational
manoeuvre and a pretty extended one at that.
It seems that Grice touched on this. But he would restrict 'reason'
(rather than 'argue') to discourse:
p
p
---
c
premise
premise
--- ergo conclusion.
So we need at least TWO utterances:
premise
conclusion.
The OED considers 'reasonings' or arguments of the form
"I like it because I like it"
as "woman's reason". This sort of reasoning Grice calls 'trivial'. Also
reasoning that lacks a point:
"If I have five balls in my left hand and three balls in my right hand,
therefore, I have less balls in my right hand than I have in my left hand,
even if I substract two balls to the ones I already possess in my right hand."
Valid -- but --- the point?
Etc.
And so on.
Buhler was probably very HEAVY as a thesis-advisor.
Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts:
