[lit-ideas] Re: Bühleriana
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:17:18 EDT
So, and talk to you tomorrow! this is the bit which I think McEvoy was
thinking I was overlooking in my Griceana. From that online link:
"The ... sign itself is a symptom, a signal, or a symbol."
"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."
This is a new 1990 tr. so I can't see how Buehler expressed all that in
candid German.
But yes,
symptom is a good one.
If we have utterer and addressee. The psychological attitude is ALWAYS one
of the utterer. So here we do have 'symptom', as in "Yes please" means the
utterer wants it, as spots mean measles.
BUT that expressive atttitude is already embedded for Grice and me, for
the thing to count as communication, into some iteration which involves an
attitude on the addressee. FIRST: Belief, in the sense of uptake. We want
Addressee to get to know that, say, we say "It itches", i.e. that we believe
it itches.
If it's the back usually the implicature, is "Scratch it please". The
appeal function.
----- So, in being intention-based, Grice's theory does focus on the
symptom, but in providing a diagram for how the addressee is (as intended by
the
utterer) already in the picture, it becomes a SIGNAL par excellence. And
so on. Symbol and index and icon are Peirce's trio, incidentally. And so on.
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
