Together with its introduction, Language, Mind and Epistemology examines Davidson's unified stance towards philosophy by joining American and European authors ...

Die Sprachtheorie steht heute vor neuen Herausforderungen. Sie zeichnet sich durch die schnelle Dynamik ihrer Entwicklung und die Öffnung gegenüber anderen Wissenschaften und Forschungsbereichen aus. Ergebnisse der Sprachtheorie sind für die Philosophie, Linguistik und die Sozialwissenschaften, aber auch für andere Bereiche wie z. B. die Kommunikationswissenschaften, von Bedeutung. Von besonderer Relevanz sind daher Untersuchungen, die die neuesten Entwicklungen in einen breiten theoretischen Rahmen setzen und zu fruchtbaren Diskussionen zwischen Wissenschaftlern unterschiedlicher Fachrichtungen führen. Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge konzentrieren sich (...) auf folgende Schwerpunkte der Sprachtheorie: Intentionale Bedeutung, Sprecherbedeutung und Sprachbedeutung, Intentionalität, Kommunikation und kommunikative Intentionen, die Fortbildung und Kritik der von Grice entwickelten Bedeutungstheorie (Bedeutungsnominalismus) sowie ihre Anwendung auf die sogenannte Theorie der sprachlichen Kraft (illokutive Kraft), ein Neuanfang der Klassifikation von Sprechakten, Analyse der Gültigkeitsunterstellungen der Interpretation, Ergebnise der Dialogforschung, Modelle der Argumentationstheorie. Der Band dokumentiert die Aktualität, den interdisziplinären Charakter und die Breite der modernen Sprachtheorie. (shrink)

At first I discuss the role of the term "presupposition" in philosophy and linguistics. After introductory considerations to the term of presupposition I will come to the problems correlating with this term (presuppositions - conversational implicatures, the communicative function of presuppositions, presuppositions and conditions of happiness), in a further step some propositions to definitions and classifications of presuppositions will be discussed. Aim ofthe considerations is to extend the term of presupposition. This offers the possibility to put this term into the (...) global context of implicite knowledge and thereafter to reconstruct the background knowledge of Lebenswelt (lifeworld) in the frame of an analysis of presuppositions. In my investigations I concentrate on the question what it means that a sentence/an utterance presupposes a certain background knowledge (J R. Searle). A reconstruction and discussion of the term of presupposition in the "Diskurs"-theory (J. Habermas) marks the end of the investigations. (shrink)

For Protosociology the "Diskurs "-theory has a special significance. Validity-dimensions of speech and their evaluation in the procedure of argumentation indicate generalized presuppositions of interactive processes. These validity-dimensions can be reconstructed in lingusitic characterisations of "normative language" (P.W. Taylor). Thus it is possible to make first steps to a theory of validity. Protosociology provides a special reconstruction of argumentative speech on the level "interpersonality, structure of communicative acting and collective identity". The aim of Protosociology within a context of problems of (...) "Diskurs"-theory would have to establish normative values for an evaluation of such validity-dimensions. A logic of "Diskurs" would have to be developed as a kind of logic of "relevance". (shrink)

For the last 30 years there have been debates in philosophy about the concept of rationality. In anglo-american circles they have been primary characterized as discussions about “justified beliefs.” By contrast, the debate in Germany among discourse-theorists (Habermas, Apel) has been linked to the problem of justification of communicative speech-acts (within the concept of the entire communicative situation). Herbert Schnädelbach has modified the discours-theoretical account. His concept can be regarded along a number of dimensions. He has developed a linguistic analysis (...) of the validity claims made in various speech-act situations (following Paul Taylor). In Schnädelbach’s view, normative characterizations of speech acts can be used descriptively, too. Furthermore, the hierarchy of justifications ends on the level of rational choice.My starting point here is: there is a fundamental distinction between justifications in everyday-life and a theoretical level of justification (discoursive justifications). Thus, I discuss the hierarchy of justifications developed by Schnädelbach.Furthermore, I evaluate Schnädelbach’s concept in a semantic perspective. I will show that Schnädelbach’s pragmatical account requires a semantic analysis. Without recourse to such analysis, we cannot understand the universe of normative language. (shrink)