Arguments
« previous post | next post »
The first couple of panels of today's SMBC:
The next few panels suggest that technically, it's more of a pragmatic argument, in that the argument is about speaker's meaning rather than literal meaning — though the ordinary-language meaning of pragmatic is almost directly the opposite of what's needed here:
And the last couple of panels confirm that we're talking about CNN terminology rather than LSA terminology:
Though a meta-argument about semiotic terminology would be a step up from most of my occasional samples of cable news argumentation.
Mouseover title: "I see junkies everywhere now!"
And the aftercomic:
Ralph Hickok said,
October 27, 2015 @ 7:22 am
Reminiscent of the Monty Python "Argument" sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
empty said,
October 27, 2015 @ 9:02 am
No, it's not.
derek said,
October 27, 2015 @ 11:30 am
Yes, it is
Jim said,
October 27, 2015 @ 2:14 pm
Oh, shut up!
Jonathan Mayhew said,
October 27, 2015 @ 4:07 pm
What is the ordinary language definition of pragmatics? I'm not getting it. (semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'pragmatic')
[(myl) There isn't any ordinary language definition of pragmatics, as far as I know. But the definition of pragmatic in ordinary usage is something like "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations". So a pragmatic argument would be one that ignored fussy questions about interpretation, and certainly not one that raised meta-interpretive question about literal meaning vs. speaker's intention.
And the definition of semantic in ordinary usage is something like "relating to meaning", which would cover questions of interpretation or meta-interpretation at whatever level of analysis.
But linguists like to distinguish between meaning as something that sentences have (semantics) versus meaning as something that speakers do (pragmatics).]
Jason Merchant said,
October 28, 2015 @ 4:24 pm
CNN terminology, also familiar to Fox viewers: see this.