The Pragmatic Paradox

Abstract

That these two positions each describe the same linguistic feature is further supported by the choice of examples which Rudolph Carnap chooses to illustrate those relations which he identifies as pragmatic. These examples are: “…they intend to assert…,” “When using this name…,” “… serves to express the assertion…,” “… is acknowledged…,” etc.³ It is well known of course that Carnap was skeptical about being able to develop a systematic pragmatics in the way that it is done for syntax and semantics. Morris, however, identifies a distinction which he attributes to C. S. Peirce which should have given pause to Carnap’s skepticism, namely Peirce’s distinction between “interpreter” and “interpretant.” Morris says,

The interpreter of a sign is an organism; the interpretant is the habit of the organism to respond, because of the sign vehicle, to absent objects which are relevant to a present problematic situation as if they were present.⁴

Some of the English verbs and verb phrases associated with illocutionary acts are: state, assert, describe, warn, remark, comment, approve, welcome, promise, express approval, and express regret.¹

In terms … of the triadic relation of semiosis,… [o]ne may study the relations … of signs to interpreters. This relation will be called the pragmatical dimension of semiosis, symbolized by ‘D _p ,’and the study of this dimension will be named pragmatics.²