Annotation:The Development of Language as Purposive Behavior*/Tub5hl72p0

From DigiVis
< Annotation:The Development of Language as Purposive Behavior*
Revision as of 18:18, 11 March 2019 by Sarah Oberbichler (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Argument |field_radiobutton=pro }} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior* |AnnotationComment=Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konvent...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Annotation of The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior*
Annotation Comment Der Gebrauch von Sprache muss konventionell sein
Last Modification Date 2019-03-11T18:18:49.832Z
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","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1552324729477°