Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism
Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism
Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Br<strong><strong>an</strong>d</strong>om<br />
Me<strong>an</strong>ing-Use Diagram #3:<br />
Pragmatically Mediated<br />
Sem<strong>an</strong>tic Presupposition<br />
V observational<br />
Res 1 : VV 1,2,3<br />
V inferential<br />
3: PV-suff<br />
1:PV-suff<br />
P observational<br />
2: PP-nec<br />
P inferential<br />
For these cases, we c<strong>an</strong> say something further about the nature of the pragmatically mediated sem<strong>an</strong>tic relation that<br />
is <strong>an</strong>alyzed as the result<strong>an</strong>t MUR in these diagrams. For instead of jumping directly to this VV result<strong>an</strong>t MUR, we<br />
could have put in the composition of the PP-necessity <strong><strong>an</strong>d</strong> second PV-sufficiency relation, yielding a kind of<br />
complex pragmatic presupposition:<br />
Me<strong>an</strong>ing-Use Diagram<br />
Composition<br />
#4:<br />
V looks-φ<br />
V is-φ<br />
3: PV-suff<br />
Res 2 :PV 2,3<br />
1:PV-suff<br />
P looks-φ<br />
2: PP-nec<br />
P is-φ<br />
If this diagram were completed by <strong>an</strong> arrow from V is-φ to V looks-φ such that the same diagonal result<strong>an</strong>t arrow could<br />
represent both the composition of relations 2 <strong><strong>an</strong>d</strong> 3 <strong><strong>an</strong>d</strong> the composition of relation 1 <strong><strong>an</strong>d</strong> the newly supplied one,<br />
then category theorists would say that the diagram commutes. And the arrow that needs to be supplied to make the<br />
diagram commute they call the retraction of relation 1 through the composition Res 2 :<br />
LL1 Text.rtf 20 11/8/2007
Change language