BOWM Nseeh Sum UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Iq

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

BOWM Nseeh Sum UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Iq RHETORIC AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION CHARLES WILLIAM KNEUPPER A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 1973 /Approved by Doctoral Committae: //¿T Department of Speech Graduate School Representative BOWM nSEEH sum UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Iq © 1974 CHARLES WILLIAM KNEUPPER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED )b ABSTRACT This study developes a ’’new1’ philosophy of rhetoric. It is premised on an examination of classical rhetorical theory and contemporary rhetorical theory. It is based on a dynamic view of language function. Ultimately it rests on the symbol creating and symbol using capacities of the human mind. This study surveys the history of the classical rhetorical tradition and the direction of contemporary rhetorical theory. It investigates the relationship between language and thought, perception, and action. It views rhetoric as the process through which reality constructs are formed and shared. Social reality is a product of this rhetorical process. Social reality is a human creation. Rhetoric is the process through which it is created, maintained or transformed. •o When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies. Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams, this may be madness. To seek treasure, where there is only trash, this may be madness. Too imuch sanity may be madness. But maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be. THE MAN OF LA MANCHA DEDICATED TO: Marvin Troy Hunn Sally Miller Gearhart Janis Lynn Hilbert Carl William Jeske Gary and Juanita Eckles <1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... iii CHAPTER I: THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF THE CLASSICAL RHETORICAL TRADITION ................. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2 CLASSICAL RHETORIC'S RISE TO PREEMINENCE ...................... 3 THE MIDDLE AGES: DIFFUSION AND DECLINE ........................ 5 RENAISSANCE: THE DISMEMBERMENT OF RHETORIC ............... 7 THE REVIVAL OF RHETORIC ............................................................... 9 RHETORIC'S REVIVAL UNDER THE FIELD OF SPEECH ............ 10 INADEQUACY OF THE CLASSICAL TRADITION.................................. 14 A NEW BEGINNING.................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER II: DIRECTION IN CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC ... 23 I. A. RICHARDS .................................................................................... 24 RICHARD M. WEAVER.............................................................................. 26 KENNETH BURKE ................................................ 29 CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP ........................................................................ 32 TRENDS IN CONTEMPORARYR HETORIC .............................................. 33 CHAPTER III: LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT .................................... 39 WHORFIAN HYPOTHESES ........................................................................ 40 EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR LINGUISTIC DOMINANCE ................. 47 RELATED PERCEPTION RESEARCH ..................................................... 49 IMPLICATIONS OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITYAAND LINGUISTIC DOMINANCE FOR RHETORIC............................... 52 LANGUAGE AND RHETORICAL THOUGHT ............................................ 54 LANGUAGE AND ACTION........................................................................ 55 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 56 11 CHAPTER IV: SOCIAL REALITY CONSTRUCTION ........................ 59 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 60 REALITY....................................................................................................... 60 KNOWLEDGE AS HUMAN CONSTRUCTION.............................................. 62 HUMAN ACTION AND REALITY CONSTRUCTS .................................... 65 SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED REALITY..................................................... 69 THE REFLEXIVITY OF SOCIAL REALITY......................................... 72 UNIVERSES OF DISCOURSE ................................................................... 78 ALTERNATIVE REALITY CONSTRUCTIONS ......................................... 81 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CLASSIFICATION....................................... 84 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 85 CHAPTER V: REALITY MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION.......................................................... 91 INTRODUCTION............ .............................................................................. 92 UNIVERSES OF DISCOURSE: FURTHER EXPLICATION............... 93 REALITY MAINTENANCE ............................................. 99 REALITY RECONSTRUCTION.................................................................... 103 RHETORICAL VISION............................ 109 SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX............................................................................... ..................... 114 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY 116 ill INTRODUCTION The purpose of this dissertation is to provide an initial development of a "new” philosophy of rhetoric. This philosophy which views rhetoric as reality construction is implied by some contemporary rhetorical theory, but is unrecognized in classical rhetorical theory. The philosophy is based on a consideration of the symbol creating and symbol using capacities of the human mind. It views language as the dominant social symbolism which channels thought and directs action. Social reality is a product of human symbolic interaction. Social reality is possible only insofar as symbols are shared betwean people and utilized to direct thought and action. Through rhetoric, symbols are created and communicated. Through rhetoric, social reality is created, maintained and transformed. The philosophy being developed is "new” to rhetorical theory. However, the insights of this philosophy are not without a strong intellectual tradition. Throughout the dissertation I will draw upon this tradition which includes scholarship in contemporary rhetorical theory, critical philosophy, philosophy of language, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, general semantics, the sociology of knowledge, and socio- and psycholinguistics. CHAPTER I: THE DEVELOPMENT AND DECLINE OF THE CLASSICAL RHETORICAL TRADITION 2 INTRODUCTION: Rhetoric is an ancient and venerable art. In Western Civilization its earliest theoretical formulation is attributed to Corax and Tisias, Sicilian Greeks of the fifth century B.C. Yet the practice of Rhetoric is primordial "since it belongs to speech and must have been practiced, o to some extent . wherever language existed." The critical formula­ tion of the Art was based on the observation of its practice. Referring to critical formulation, Professor of Classics, George Kennedy indicates that "in its origin and intention rhetoric was natural and good: it produced clarity, vigor, and beauty, and it rose logically from the 3 conditions and qualities of the classical mind." The reliance of ancient civilization on oral communication in a political system which "operated through the direct speech of the citizens" produced an inter­ est in Rhetoric.^ Because Rhetoric was significant to both the individual and society, it is not surprising that it received serious consideration and criticism from Plato, defense from Aristotle, and expansion from Cicero and Quintilian, to mention only major theorists. Because of the relevance of rhetoric to the individual citizen in the conduct of his political activities, it follows that rhetoric would play "the central role in ancient education.Edward P. J. Corbett,who traces the history of classical rhetoric from the fifth century, indicates that "during most of that time, rhetoric was a prominent, and for long stretches the dominant, discipline in the schools.From it’s status in ancient education it seems reasonable to conclude that rhetoric was 3 generally valued as a useful and productive art. Today, rhetoric (at least as a term) is not generally valued. John H. Mackin suggests that: Nowadays rhetoric is a bad word. If you want to put someone’s writing down, just call it rhe­ torical. If you want to deflate an opponent and reduce him to sputtering rage, dismiss his argu­ ments as mere rhetoric. The term today more often than not means fancy language concealing emptiness.? The devaluation and consequent decline of rhetoric is an intriguing phenomena. One which should immediately prompt the question: Why? While a definitive analysis of this phenomena is beyond the scope and purpose of this work, I would suggest that the phenomena may be plausibly explained as a function of historical accident and flaws within the classical rhetorical tradition. In this chapter I shall survey the development and decline of the classical rhetorical tradi­ tion and present a partial analysis of the theoretical basis of its decline. CLASSICAL RHETORIC'S RISE TO PREEMINENCE Before considering the decline of rhetoric, let us briefly con­ sider the development of the classical rhetorical tradition. George Kennedy suggests that despite slight deviations, "the history of ancient rhetoric is largely that of the
Recommended publications
  • Philosophy of Linguistics
    Philosophy of Linguistics Brian Rabern Philosophy DSB 4.04c 0131 651 5178 [email protected] Geoff Pullum Linguistics DSB 2.23 0131 650 3603 [email protected] Meetings The class meetings are from 11:00 to 13:00 each Wednesday from 19th September to 28th November in Old Library 2.19, Geography building, Old Infirmary complex (weeks 1–3 and 6–11) and in 01M.469 Teaching Room 12 (Doorway 3), Medical School building. Class meetings are mandatory. Readings Required reading is to be done before the class meets; background reading to be studied as time and specific interests permit. Assessment (i) short paper (1000-1500 words) to be turned in by 5 p.m. on Monday 15th October (topics will be provided); (ii) final essay examination with choice of questions from the whole of the course. Week 1 (19th September; Old Library 2.19): Introduction What linguistics is. Linguistics as a special science. Syntax and semantics as conceived in logic. Charles Morris’s trichotomy of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Philosophy of science applied to linguistics. Required reading • Hunter, Geoffrey (1971) Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 4–13. Background reading • Stainton, Robert (2014) ‘Philosophy of linguistics’, Oxford Handbooks Online. Online at https://works.bepress.com/robertstainton/126/ Week 2 (26th September; Old Library 2.19): Language and languages The metaphysics of linguistics. The vexed question of whether language should be regarded as psychological, social, or purely abstract. The descriptive linguistics of the American structuralists and the mentalist/cognitive backlash; ‘God’s truth’ (realism) vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity Hyp
    THE LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY HYPOTHESIS by Michele Nathan A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Social Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida December 1973 THE LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY HYPOTHESIS by Michele Nathan This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. John D. Early, Department of Anthropology, and has been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the College of Social Science and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: &~ rl7 IC?13 (date) 1 ii ABSTRACT Author: Michele Nathan Title: The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis Institution: Florida Atlantic University Degree: Master of Arts Year: 1973 Although interest in the linguistic relativity hypothesis seems to have waned in recent years, this thesis attempts to assess the available evidence supporting it in order to show that further investigation of the hypothesis might be most profitable. Special attention is paid to the fact that anthropology has largely failed to substantiate any claims that correlations between culture and the semantics of language do exist. This has been due to the impressionistic nature of the studies in this area. The use of statistics and hypothesis testing to provide mor.e rigorous methodology is discussed in the hope that employing such paradigms would enable anthropology to contribute some sound evidence regarding t~~ hypothesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction • 1 CHAPTER I THE.HISTORY OF THE FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: the Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 761 FL 024 384 AUTHOR van Troyer, Gene TITLE Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: The Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication. PUB DATE Dec 94 NOTE 18p. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT JALT Journal; v16 n2 p163-78 Dec 1994 EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Foreign Countries; *Intercultural Communication; *Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Research Methodology; Scientific Methodology IDENTIFIERS *Sapir (Edward); Whorf (Benjamin Lee); *Whorfian Hypothesis ABSTRACT The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, long considered a factor in intercultural communication, is discussed. Empirical studies that have tended to validate the hypothesis are reviewed, and the hypothesis is then considered from the standpoint of empirical and scientific research requirements. It is shown that the hypothesis has never been formally defined for testing, and therefore does not exist as a scientifically testable thesis. As a result, all studies that have attempted to interpret empirical data accorded to the hypothesis are either flawed or invalid because they have tested something other than the hypothesis. It is concluded that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis exists only as a notion, and has no meaningful relation to intercultural communication. Includes an abstract in Japanese. Contains 22 references. (Author/MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL This document has been reproduced as HAS BE N GRANTEDBY ceived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts in Motion
    ! ! "# $ % & #''# #() (*+,(( - . / 0& /& &1 , ' ,2 &##/ # ,# & 3, ,/4 # 56/'# / & , , & , ' & / & ' , # # # & 7 '& & ' 3#/(((6,0 '# & / # 8 # 8 # & '# , ' & # '& ,% & # / # # & # ,9& / '# #' '# , 3 6, 3 & 6 # ,% / # / /& '# # 3 & '4 56'/ #/ ' # # & ' 34 56, # , ' & ,2 : # 3 6 & # '; # , / # ' &' ; 3,,/ <6,2 / ' & ' / / , ! (* 7== ,',= &< > 7 ' 777&?@* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(AA 2-?((C@ % & #/(B@ Thoughts in Motion The Role of Long-Term L1 and Short-Term L2 Experience when Talking and Thinking of Caused Motion Guillermo Montero-Melis Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Doctoral Dissertation 2017 Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Copyright: Guillermo Montero-Melis Printing: Universitetsservice AB, Stockholm 2017 Correspondence: SE 106 91 Stockholm www.biling.su.se ISBN 978-91-7649-807-1 (print) ISBN 978-91-7649-808-8 (electronic) ISSN 1400-5921 A mi abuelo Manuel Melis, por su amor al saber Acknowledgements Two persons have mainly guided my efforts. I am deeply grateful to my main advisors, Manne
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity, Cultural Relativityn and Foreign Language Teaching
    Linguistic Relativity, Cultural Relativityn and Foreign Language Teaching A. Effendi Kadarisman State University of Malang Abstract: Every language is assumed to be unique, structurally and culturally. Taking this neo-Bloomfieldian assumption at the outset, this paper first points out the inadequacy of sentence grammars for foreign language teaching, Toward this end, the paper further argues for the necessity of understanding linguistic and cultural relativity. Linguistic relativity, or better known as the Sapir-whorf hypothesis, suggesis that the way we perceive and categorize reality is partly determined by the language we speak; and cultural relativity implies that verbalization of concepts in a particular language is often culturally conditioned. As related to the field of foreign language teaching, relativity across languages and cultures presupposes contrastive analysis in a very broad sense. Thus pointing out differences in language structures and cultural conventions should lead students to better acquisition of linguistic and cultural sensitivity. Key words: linguistic relativity, cultural relativity, Sapir_Worf hypo_ thesis, foreign language teaching ''ALL GRAMMARS LEAK'' The statement "All grammars leak" is a quotation from Edward sapir's Language (p. 38), first publishedin 1921; and since then its predictive power has been revealing. This section gives a brief overview of grammars and points out how they leak. My approach in this section is both analytical and historical, and the argument in this paper swings back and forth between applied and theoretical linguistics. since modern linguistics as the 2005 Volume WI, Number !, February Kadar is man, L i n gu is t i c Re lat iv i 2 TEFLIN Journal, ty, C u I tu ra I Re lat iv i ty 3 a linguistic investigation The Saussurean legacy is best defined as structuralism, rise of Generative Grammar with fascinating terms (such as well as competence of culture is predominantly structural, methodoiogically as and performance, deep structure and surfaie structure) made EFL technically.
    [Show full text]
  • General Semantics Bulletin
    General Semantics Bulletin Yearbook of the Institute of General Semantics Number 71, Membership Year 2004 Fort Worth, TX Honorary Trustees, 1940 Executive Director APPOINTED BY ALFRED KORZYBSKI Steve Stockdale Gaston Bachelard Maxim Bing Assistant Executive Director Abraham A. Brill Jennifer Carmack W. Burridge Ross McC. Chapman, George E. Coghill Arthur Stone Dewing Board of Trustees Franklin C. Ebaugh Officers P. H. Esser President, Andrea Johnson David Fairchild Vice President, Irene S. Ross Mayper Clarence B. Farrar Treasurer, Lynn Schuldt William Healy Lancelot Hogben Secretary, Susan Presby Kodish Earnest A. Hooten Recording Secretary, Robert R. Potter Smith Ely Jelliffe Edward Kasner Board Members Cassius J. Keyser George J. Barenholtz Nolan D. C. Lewis Sanford I. Berman Ralph S. Lillie Laura Bertone Bronislaw Malinowski Walter W. Davis Raymond W. McNealy Milton Dawes Adolf Meyer Allen Flagg Winfred Overholser James Douglas French Stewart Paton Raymond Pearl Gregg Hoffmann William F. Petersen Bruce Kodish Roscoe Pound Susan Presby Kodish George S. Stevenson Martin Levinson M. Tramer Harry Maynard Walter L. Treadway Jeffrey A. Mordkowitz Richard Weil, Jr. Gerard I. Nierenberg George K. Zipf Frank Scardilli Honorary Trustees APPOINTED 1963 AND SINCE Robert Blake, Joseph Brewer, Douglas G. Campbell, Hadley Cantril, Stuart Carter Dodd, R. Buckminster Fuller, Henri Laborit, Abraham Maslow, Myres S. McDougall, Joost A. M. Meerloo, Russell Meyers, E. DeAlton Partridge, Allen Walker Read, J. Gordon Roberts, F. J. Roethlisberger, Jesse H. Shera, Alvin M. Weinberg © Institute of General Semantics The Scientific Philosophy of General Semantics General Semantics (GS) qualifies as an unusual, tough- to-‘pin down’, interdisciplinary field. “Is it a science or a philosophy?” Perhaps GS may best be seen as neither ‘science’ nor ‘philosophy’ but rather as both/and––a scientific philosophy applicable moreover to the life concerns of ‘the man and woman in the street’.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J
    Advanced Review Linguistic relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J. Holmes The central question in research on linguistic relativity, or the Whorfian hypothesis, is whether people who speak different languages think differently. The recent resurgence of research on this question can be attributed, in part, to new insights about the ways in which language might impact thought. We identify seven categories of hypotheses about the possible effects of language on thought across a wide range of domains, including motion, color, spatial relations, number, and false belief understanding. While we do not find support for the idea that language determines the basic categories of thought or that it overwrites preexisting conceptual distinctions, we do find support for the proposal that language can make some distinctions difficult to avoid, as well as for the proposal that language can augment certain types of thinking. Further, we highlight recent evidence suggesting that language may induce a relatively schematic mode of thinking. Although the literature on linguistic relativity remains contentious, there is growing support for the view that language has a profound effect on thought. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Cogn Sci 2010 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.104 INTRODUCTION rise to several logical paradoxes.6 However, a recent resurgence of research in this area has uncovered olk psychology tells us that human cognition subtle and intriguing interactions between language depends on language, and further, that this F and thought, leading to a number of more nuanced dependency creates differences in thought across versions of the proposal. language communities. Although often mistaken, folk psychology appears to be at least partially correct in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory Reflections: Linguistic Determinism/Relativism
    Theory Reflections: Linguistic Determinism/Relativism The Theory The theory of linguistic determinism and relativity presents a two-sided phenomenon: Does the specific language (and culture) we are exposed to in childhood determine, in fact, how we perceive the world, how we think, and how we express ourselves? If this is so, then, it must also be the case that each language (and the culture it represents) necessarily provides its speakers with a specific and differing view of that same world, a different way of thinking, and a different way of expressing. This notion is related to a parallel issue that has existed throughout the centuries—are there also universal absolutes that transcend all linguistic (and cultural) particulars? Recent research suggests there may be elements of both. Linguistic determinism came to the attention of linguists and anthropologists during the 1930s, prompted by the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Using prevailing linguistic approaches of his time, Whorf, who studied indigenous languages, found surprising contrasts with European tongues in terms of how they reflected and spoke about reality (e.g., how they segment the time continuum, construct lexical hierarchies and, in short, encode a different view of the world, or Weltanschauung). The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, as it came to be known (Sapir was his teacher), gained increasing attention and prompted the notion of language determinism/relativity. In other words, the language we are born to has a direct effect upon how we conceptualize, think, interact, and express—a direct relationship between human language and human thinking This notion has remained at the center of a debate for more than half a century.
    [Show full text]
  • Masterarbeit / Master's Thesis
    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis „Impact of language on thought and worldview, especially in the domains of time and space“ verfasst von / submitted by Keun Jun Song angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien 2016 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 812 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium English Language and Linguistics degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Ritt Table of contents page Abstract………………………………….…………………………....i Acknowledgment……………………………………………………..ii List of tables…………………………………………………..……...iii List of figures…………………………………………….…………..iv 1. Introduction…………………………………………………….......1 2. Purpose of the research…………………………………………….3 3. Methodology of the research………………………………………4 4. Theory: linguistic relativity…………………………………….…..7 4.1. Advent of the theory: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis…………….……….……8 4.1.1. Sub-classification of linguistic relativity based on relevant hypotheses………………………………………………………….......13 4.1.1.1. Language as a prototype of mental activities……………….14 4.1.1.2. Linguistic determinism……………………………………..16 4.1.1.3. Thinking before language…………………………………..16 4.1.1.4. Thinking with language…………………………………….17 4.1.1.5. Thinking after language…………………………………….18 4.2. Cognitive linguistics and the theory of linguistic relativity………….…20 4.3. Language as a matrix for thought………………………………….........25 4.4. Language and worldview………………………………………..……...26 4.4.1. World-perceiving………………………………………...……….31 4.4.2. World-conceiving……………………………………………..…..32 4.4.3. Cultural mindset…………………………………………………..32 4.4.4. Personal world…………………………………………….......….35 4.4.5. Perspective………………………………………………..………36 5. Mechanism of linguistic relativity………………………….….............37 6.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple Definition of General Semantics Ben Hauck *
    A SIMPLE DEFINITION OF GENERAL SEMANTICS BEN HAUCK * [A] number of isolated facts does not produce a science any more than a heap of bricks produces a house. The isolated facts must be put in order and brought into mutual structural relations in the form of some theory. Then, only, do we have a science, something to start from, to analyze, ponder on, criticize, and improve. – Alfred Korzybski Science & Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics1 The term, ‘semantic reaction’ will be used as covering both semantic reflexes and states. In the present work, we are interested in [semantic reactions], from a psychophysiological, theoretical and experimental point of view, which include the corresponding states. – Alfred Korzybski Science & Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics2 OR A NUMBER OF DECADES and perhaps for all of its life, general semantics has Fsuffered from an identity crisis. People have long had difficulty defining the term general semantics for others. Of those people who have settled on definitions, many of their definitions are too vague, too general, or just plain awkward. The bulk of these definitions is of the awkward sort, more like descriptions than definitions3, leading to a hazy image of general semantics and a difficulty in categorizing it in the grand scheme of fields. Because of awkward definitions, people learning of general semantics for the first time can’t relate to it, so they don’t become interested in it. *Ben Hauck webmasters the websites for the Institute of General Semantics and the New York Soci- ety for General Semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • General Semantics And... by Martin H. Levinson
    GENERAL SEMANTICS AND . MARTIN H. LEVINSON eneral semantics, a process-oriented, problem-solving system, helps G individuals better evaluate and understand the world and therefore make more intelligent decisions. It was originally formulated by Alfred Korzybski, a Polish engineer and intellectual who came to the United States during World War I. Since then, many thinkers, educators, therapists, and other professionals have contributed to the system and general semantics ideas and formulations have been taught in many college courses throughout the world. From the beginning, Korzybski and his students considered general semantics a pragmatic discipline, to be used by individuals, groups, and organizations to solve problems. The fi rst two popular books on the sub- ject, The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase and Language in Action (1941) by S. I. Hayakawa (later titled Language in Thought and Action) re- fl ected the practical approach as each author used general semantics to ex- amine and assess the infl uence of language on thought and behavior. Sub- sequent individuals have employed general semantics to analyze and solve problems in a wide variety of fi elds, including the areas of education, com- munication, negotiation, management, social science, journalism, and per- sonal adjustment. Over the years, numerous articles on the benefi ts of general semantics have appeared in the General Semantics Bulletin and ETC: A Review of Gen- eral Semantics and more than 150 doctoral- and master’s-degree theses have demonstrated its effi cacy. As the following quotations show, general semantics is a highly useful methodology with a wide range of applicability in diverse areas of human endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • General Semantics Author(S): David Lewis Source: Synthese, Vol
    General Semantics Author(s): David Lewis Source: Synthese, Vol. 22, No. 1/2, Semantics of Natural Language, II (Dec., 1970), pp. 18-67 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20114749 . Accessed: 09/12/2014 13:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Synthese. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 171.66.240.83 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:21:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DAVID LEWIS GENERAL SEMANTICS I. INTRODUCTION On the hypothesis that all natural or artificial languages of interest to us can be given transformational grammars of a certain not-very-special sort, it becomes possible to give very simple general answers to the questions: (1) What sort of thing is a meaning? (2) What is the form of the semantic rules whereby meanings of compounds are built up from the meanings of their consti tuent parts? It is not my plan to make any strong empirical claim about language. To the contrary: I want to propose a convenient format for semantics general enough to work for a great variety of logically possible languages.
    [Show full text]