David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 13 (3-4):307-324 (2008)
To Aristotle, spoken words are symbols, not of objects in the world, but of our mental experiences related to these objects. Presently there are two major strands of interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign. First, there is the structuralist account offered by Coseriu (Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie. Von den Anfängen bis Rousseau, 2003 , pp. 65–108) whose interpretation is reminiscent of the Saussurean sign concept. A second interpretation, offered by Lieb (in: Geckeler (Ed.) Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu 1921–1981, 1981) and Weidemann (in: Schmitter (Ed.) Geschichte der Sprachtheorie 2. Sprachtheorien der abendländischen Antike, 1991), says that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is similar to the one presented in Ogden and Richard’s (The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism, 1970 ) semiotic triangle. This paper starts off with an introductory outline of the so-called phýsei-thései discussion which started during presocratic times and culminated in Plato’s Cratylus. Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is to be regarded as a solution to the stalemate position reached in the Cratylus. Next, a discussion is offered of both Coseriu’s and Lieb’s analysis. We submit that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign shows features of both Saussure’s and Ogden and Richards’s sign concept but that it does not exclusively predict one of the two. We argue that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is based on three different relations which together evince his teleological as well empiricist point of view: one internal (symbolic) relation and two external relations, i.e. a likeness relation and a relation katà synthéken
|Keywords||Aristotle Plato Presocratics E. Coseriu H.H. Lieb phýsei vs. thései Sign concept Bilateralness Triadic sign concept Arbitrariness Similarity Meaning Reference katà synthéken Páthema Intentionality Teleology Semantics Symbol Theory of language Philosophy of language Historiography of the language sciences|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charlotta Weigelt (2004). Logos as Kinesis. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 9 (1):101-116.
Sissel Redse Jørgensen & Rani Lill Anjum (eds.) (2006). Tegn Som Språk. Gyldendal Akademisk.
Ullin T. Place (1995). Symbolic Processes and Stimulus Equivalence. Behavior and Philosophy 23 (3-1):13 - 30.
Laurent Cesalli & Nadja Germann (2008). Signification and Truth Epistemology at the Crossroads of Semantics and Ontology in Augustine's Early Philosophical Writings. Vivarium 46 (2):123-154.
John O'Callaghan (2010). Concepts, Mirrors, and Signification. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):133-162.
Codruţa Porcar (2011). Sign and Meaning: A Semiotic Approach to Communication. Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (1):20-29.
Matthew D. Walz (2006). The Opening of "On Interpretation": Toward a More Literal Reading. Phronesis 51 (3):230 - 251.
Claus Emmeche (2002). The Chicken and the Orphean Egg: On the Function of Meaning and the Meaning of Function. Σημιοτκή-Sign Systems Studies 1 (1):15-32.
Jean-Louis Hudry (2011). Aristotle on Meaning. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (3):253-280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #79,963 of 1,102,503 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #85,420 of 1,102,503 )
How can I increase my downloads?