Editor for this issue: Steve Moran <steve
linguistlist.org>
Summary of Responses to "Looking for Ludwig" (Linguist 15.1015) 3/24/04 There have been a number of useful suggestions for me to follow up on regarding this notion of meaning. The following have been mentioned: Paul Grice's emphasis on communicator intentions and words as tools of influence, Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory, and W. Diver's instrumental view. David Bohm and Christopher Gauker were also mentioned, though not in the same breath. All of these sound related though many fine distinctions could be drawn no doubt. A. Damasio, the neurologist, was not mentioned, but I encourage all to read some of his recent work. It was also suggested that there is not much new in what I proposed though I have not been able to find anything yet that puts emphasis on the grounding of semantics in feelings on the recipient end, though intentions and goals, close relatives of desires, are getting close to feelings on the sender end. If my conjecture is right, communications are meaningless to the recipients who do not literally feel they understand what was intended. That may be new. I have plenty to read now, and I thank everyone who corresponded with me, especially those who spent some time at it, and who provided good leads. If my journeys lead me to comment further, I'll do it on my web site, and post a pointer to it here. I think we are all in the process of witnessing humanity being turned inside out by careful scientific analysis of what it is to be human, aware, and able to act and communicate. Understanding meaning in the wider sense is a goal worth pursuing. Thanks !Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue