semiotics

[Ghetta Life]

>From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <michael at michael-hussmann.de>
>
>John Doe (tristero69 at yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> > how would ANY communication occur, if everyone saw EVERY item as 
>completely "open" to interpretations other than those in mind of the 
>writer?
>
>My interpretation(s) will depend on my knowledge about syntax and semantics 
>of the language used, on my encyclopedic knowledge, on my beliefs about the 
>author (including his intentions in general) and so on. But there's one 
>thing on which it does not depend, namely on what the author had in mind -- 
>for the simple reason that I do not and cannot know what that is. I may be 
>quite certain to know what his perlocutionary intent was, but that is 
>merely an inference, and not an inference guaranteed to be sound.

The fact that you grant some authority to syntax and semantics limits the 
*validity* of some interpretations over other, no?  And although you can 
never be sure of the author's intent, it is valid to judge some 
interpretations closer to that intent than others by acknowledging certain 
measures.

> > Clearly YOU must read recipes,  instructions for use on the back of 
>products; do you always question the intended meaning of THOSE "texts"?
>
>Sometimes I wonder what is meant, sometimes I am reasonably sure. But I may 
>be wrong anyway.
>

At least you acknowledge that you might be *wrong*.

Ghetta

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/