| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Sk9ah6yied","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":2241,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ/supӶ5Ӻ/aӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":3°Ӻ,"quote":"For if we maintained that language is no more than the production of certain sounds, we should inevitably get into the embarrassing position of having to concede that a parrot or a myna bird that has a repertoire of a dozen sentences differs from us only quantitatively, in that he can make fewer speech-sounds or combinations of sounds than we can. Though that difference is true enough, we could not help feeling that there is some qualitative difference as well. The difference, I suggest, is that, no matter what the bird says, he is not telling us anything; which is to say, he is not sending a message.Ӷ5Ӻ That is why, whatever the bird says, our response is likely to be “Amazing!” or “How clever!”. We ourselves, on the other hand, would be concerned, to say the least if, under normal circumstances (i.e., except in foreign-language lessons and certain cocktail parties), all our utterances elicited that kind of response and no other.Ӷ6Ӻ Our concern would be similar in kind (but not in degree) to the concern we feel when we turn the steering wheel of our car, and the car continues to move in a straight line; i.e., when an activity we have learned to consider instrumental in achieving a certain result, suddenly fails to achieve that result. It is in this sense that communication must be considered “instrumental”, “goal-directed”, and therefore “purposive”.Ӷ7Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°,^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°,^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°,^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°,^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°,^"jQuery32100328433307197324442":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562262329196°
|
