Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensional Man Vs Extensional Man: A Difficult Dialogue

  • Chapter
Cognitive Constraints on Communication

Part of the book series: Synthese Language Library ((SLAP,volume 18))

  • 197 Accesses

Abstract

Any semiotic approach (cf. Eco. 1976)1 should distinguish between a theory of codes and a theory of sign production, that is between a theory of signification and a theory of communication. In other words it is indispensable to distinguish between the criteria of organization of the cultural encyclopedia (a merely intensional system of meaning postulates) and the various phenomena of communicational interaction (among which there is the extensional use of languages, that is, the use of languages in order to designate actual or possible states of the world).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Trans, by H.I. Woolf and Wilfrid S. Jackson, in Voltaire, Zadig and Other Romances, privately printed for Rarity Press, New York, 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Eco, The Role of the Reader, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  3. As for the distinction between inference to a rule and inference to a case (as well as for the distinction hypothesis/abduction) I refer to the researches of Paul R. Thagard: “The Unity of Peirce’s Theory of Hypothesis”, Transactions of the C.S. Peirce Society 13, 1977, and ‘Semiosis and Hypothetic Inference in Ch. S. Peirce’, VS 19–20, 1978 (where Thagard criticizes my former views on this subject).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bologna, Italy

    Umberto Eco

Authors
  1. Umberto Eco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cognitive Science, M.I.T., USA

    Lucia Vaina

  2. Computer Science Department, Boston University, USA

    Lucia Vaina

  3. Department of Philosophy, Florida State University, USA

    Jaakko Hintikka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eco, U. (1984). Intensional Man Vs Extensional Man: A Difficult Dialogue. In: Vaina, L., Hintikka, J. (eds) Cognitive Constraints on Communication. Synthese Language Library, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9188-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9188-6_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-1949-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-9188-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation