|Language rules, philosophy: the question here is whether rules for the use of language are possible or useful at all. Some authors acknowledge them for the definition of reference (reference objects), but not for meanings. See also language acquisition, language, language games, reference. meaning._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Rules/Hungerland: rules are only useful if they are formulated according to actions that can be considered as a standard.
What is the essence of logical solitude? Is it the negation of context implication? How does it differ from the logical contradiction?
As a linguistic action it is rather ineffective or absurd, when one part withdraws the other.
Absurdity of an action is rather cultural-specific than a logical absurdity._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Isabel C. Hungerland
Contextual Implication, Inquiry, 3/4, 1960, pp. 211-258
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1979