Difference between revisions of "Annotation:The Development of Language as Purposive Behavior*/Tub5hl72p0"
(Created page with "{{Argument |field_radiobutton=pro }} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior* |AnnotationComment=Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konvent...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Argument | {{Argument | ||
|field_radiobutton=pro | |field_radiobutton=pro | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Thema | ||
| + | |field_text_autocomplete=Sprache | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{TextAnnotation | {{TextAnnotation | ||
|AnnotationOf=The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior* | |AnnotationOf=The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior* | ||
|AnnotationComment=Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein | |AnnotationComment=Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein | ||
| − | |LastModificationDate=2019-03-11T18:18: | + | |LastModificationDate=2019-03-11T18:18:55.684Z |
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | ||
| − | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Tub5hl72p0","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":759°Ӻ,"quote":"The fact that communicatory signs must be related to their meaning, not by an inferred connection (causal, correlational, part-whole, etc.), but by an altogether different kind of link, is partially implied by Hockett’s DF7 and DF8, SEMANTICITY and ARBITRARINESS. But the discussion in which he states that English words, such as “unicorn” or “and”, lack obvious semantic ties, shows that his SEMANTICITY is derived from the traditional theory of reference, which requires “real” objects as referents. The semanticity of signs is, indeed, an essential condition for communication, but the only limitation on the semantic ties and the items which they link to signs is that they must be the same for all users of the sign, i.e., their use must be conventional.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein | + | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Tub5hl72p0","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":759°Ӻ,"quote":"The fact that communicatory signs must be related to their meaning, not by an inferred connection (causal, correlational, part-whole, etc.), but by an altogether different kind of link, is partially implied by Hockett’s DF7 and DF8, SEMANTICITY and ARBITRARINESS. But the discussion in which he states that English words, such as “unicorn” or “and”, lack obvious semantic ties, shows that his SEMANTICITY is derived from the traditional theory of reference, which requires “real” objects as referents. The semanticity of signs is, indeed, an essential condition for communication, but the only limitation on the semantic ties and the items which they link to signs is that they must be the same for all users of the sign, i.e., their use must be conventional.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1552324729477° |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:19, 11 March 2019
| Thema | Sprache |
|---|
| Annotation of | The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior* |
|---|---|
| Annotation Comment | Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein |
| Last Modification Date | 2019-03-11T18:18:55.684Z |
| Last Modification User | User:Sarah Oberbichler |
| Annotation Metadata | ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Tub5hl72p0","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":759°Ӻ,"quote":"The fact that communicatory signs must be related to their meaning, not by an inferred connection (causal, correlational, part-whole, etc.), but by an altogether different kind of link, is partially implied by Hockett’s DF7 and DF8, SEMANTICITY and ARBITRARINESS. But the discussion in which he states that English words, such as “unicorn” or “and”, lack obvious semantic ties, shows that his SEMANTICITY is derived from the traditional theory of reference, which requires “real” objects as referents. The semanticity of signs is, indeed, an essential condition for communication, but the only limitation on the semantic ties and the items which they link to signs is that they must be the same for all users of the sign, i.e., their use must be conventional.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°,^"jQuery321074044024740980192":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1552324729477°
|
