Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
V 116F
SearleVsRussell: Russell's distinction between mention and >use is too strict.
---
VI 194
Example:
Pragmatic analysis/Ross: further development: certain elements are present in the context of the speech act and syntactic processes can refer to them.
VI 195
SearleVs: this hardly differs from performative analysis.
SearleVsRoss: confusion of mention and use: Ross confuses the speaker with the "I" that refers to him, the listener with the "you", and the acts with the verbs they indicate.
VI 196
Of course, the formulation of the rules that mention speakers, listeners and acts will use these expressions.
Ross makes this mistake because he is under the spell of assuming that the rules should only mention syntactic elements. If we abandon this, our alternative theory will become easier:
1. We use independently motivated semantic and "pragmatic" knowledge.
2. We do not have to postulate erased syntactic elements.
>Deletion, >Syntax, >Mention/use.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.