Situations, Topoi, and Dispositions

On the phenomenological modelling of meaning
  • Burghard B. Rieger
  • Constantin Thiopoulos
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 208)


Submitting to the dualism of the rationalistic tradition of thought and its notions of some (objective) reality and the (subjective) conceptions of it, BARWISE/PERRY (1983) have presented a new approach to formal semantics which, essentially, can still be considered a mapping of this duality, mediated though by their notion of situation. Within their relational model of meaning, any language expression is tied to reality in two ways: by the discourse situation allowing its meaning being interpreted and by the described situation allowing its interpretation being evaluated truth-functionally. This is achieved by recognizing similarities or invariants between situations that structure a system’s surrounding environments (or fragments thereof). Mapping these invariants as uniformities across situations, cognitive systems attuned to them are able to identify and understand those bits of information which appear to be essential to form these systems’ particular view of reality: a flow of types of situations related by uniformities like individuals, relations, and time-space-locations which constrain “a world teaming with meaning”1 to become interpretable fragments as persistent courses of events.


Cognitive System Situation Semantic Linguistic Entity Phenomenological Interpretation Discourse Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, J./Perry, J. (1983): Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA (MIT )Google Scholar
  2. Heidegger, M. (1927): Sein und Zeit. Tübingen (M.Niemeyer)Google Scholar
  3. Husserl, E. (1976): Ideen I I ( Husserliana III/l ), DenHaag (M. Nijhoff)Google Scholar
  4. Maturana, H./Varela, F. (1980): Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht (Reidel)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Peirce, C.S. (1906): “Pragmatics in Retrospect: a last formulation” (CP 5.11–5.13), in: The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Ed. by J. Buchler, New York (Dover), p. 269–289Google Scholar
  6. Rieger, B. (1985): “Lexikal Relevance and Semantic Dispositions.” in: Hoppenbrouwes/ Seuren/Weijters (Eds.): Meaning and the Lexicon. Dordrecht (Foris), p.387–400Google Scholar
  7. Rieger, B. (1989a): “Situations and Dispositions. Some formal and empirical tools for semantic analysis” in: Bahner, W. (Ed.): Proceedings of the XIV. Intern. Congress of Linguists (CIPL), Berlin (Akademie) [in print]Google Scholar
  8. Rieger, B. (1989b): Unscharfe Semantik. Bern/Frankfurt/NewYork (P.Lang ) [in print]Google Scholar
  9. Rumelhart, D.E./McClelland, J.L (1986): Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. 2 Vols. Cambridge, MA (MIT)Google Scholar
  10. Varela, F. (1979): Principles of Biological Autonomy. New York (North Holland)Google Scholar
  11. Wiener, N. (1956): The Human Use of Human Beings. Cybernetics and Society. NewYork (Doubleday Anchor )Google Scholar
  12. Wittgenstein, I. (1958): The Blue and Brown Books. Ed. by R. Rhees, Oxford (Blackwell)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Burghard B. Rieger
    • 1
  • Constantin Thiopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Deptment of Computational LinguisticsFB II: LDV/CL — University of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations