[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: What is "Originalism" [Larry Solum's View]
- From: Rajasekhar Goteti <rgoteti@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 06:19:56 +0530 (IST)
And so the last point I would make is that if we extend "originalism" to cases
where a judge follows only language, we are going to need to invent a new word
for cases where they follow the ancients in celebration of whatever choices
language affords.
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org/
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
________________________________
Thought this may be of value for your discussion.Sorry for the intrusion.
The dynamic turn in semanticsThese traditional perspectives have been fiercely
debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics.[2]There are two main
challenges against the traditions. One concerns the fact that meanings of
certain linguistic expressions, such as "indexical" or "anaphora" (e.g. "this
X," "him," "last week"), are contextual. The meanings of linguistic expressions
of such kinds seems to be determined from factors external to the expressions
themselves, such as the contexts of the utterance of the expressions or the
positions (say, positions in a given discourse) in which the expressions are
placed. The other challenge holds that language is not a set of labels stuck on
things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they
function rather than their attachments to things" (Peregrin 2003). This view
reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous "game" example,
and is related to the positions
of Quine, Davidson, and others.A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is
semantic underspecification—meanings are not complete without some elements of
context. To take an example of a single word, "red," its meaning in a phrase
such as "red book" is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as
compositional.[3] However, the color implied in phrases such as "red wine"
(very dark), and "red hair" (coppery), or "red soil," or "red skin" are very
different. Indeed, these colors by themselves would not be called "red" by
native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so "red wine" is so called
only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not "white" for
the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure.
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: What is "Originalism" [Larry Solum's View] - Rajasekhar Goteti
