Author

The semantic logos and the apophantic logos

Introduction

The semantic logos and the apophantic logos. Explore Coseriu's distinction between lógos semantikós (linguistic meaning) and lógos apophantikós (logical knowledge), analyzing their universal, historical, and individual manifestations.

Abstract

Coseriu separates lógos semantikós from lógos apophantikós. The former manifests in the three levels of linguistic determination: it is universal since it is the meaningful function; it is historical in so far as the meaningful function is determined in the elements of a language; and it is individual since it manifests in texts. Logos apophantikós manifests in the three levels as well: it is universal since logic manifests as different from linguistic, since it is knowledge and since objective classifications of reality do not belong to language: they are not lexical systematizations; it is the historical since reality and knowledge of reality impose on intuition and meaning; and it is individual since it appears in those particular texts in which reality is predicated. My intention in this article is to analyze logos as it manifests in the act of speech.

Review

This paper proposes an exploration of Eugenio Coseriu's crucial distinction between *lógos semantikós* and *lógos apophantikós*. The abstract efficiently outlines the manifestation of each *logos* across three levels of linguistic determination: universal, historical, and individual. It adeptly summarizes Coseriu's framework, detailing how *lógos semantikós* relates to the meaningful function across these levels, and how *lógos apophantikós* pertains to logic, knowledge of reality, and predication within them. The author's stated intention to analyze *logos* as it manifests in the act of speech promises a valuable contribution, aiming to ground these theoretical concepts in concrete communicative events. While the abstract provides a solid foundation by clearly explicating Coseriu's nuanced framework, its primary limitation lies in not clearly articulating the author's unique analytical contribution or thesis. It functions more as a descriptive summary of an established theory than an outline for an argument-driven article. For example, the assertion that "objective classifications of reality do not belong to language" for *lógos apophantikós* is a point ripe for elaboration or critical engagement, yet the abstract offers no hint of how the author intends to explore or validate such a claim. Furthermore, the methodology for analyzing *logos* within the act of speech, and how this analysis will specifically extend, challenge, or refine Coseriu's original concepts, remains undefined, leaving the potential novelty of the paper somewhat obscure. To become a more impactful contribution, the full paper must clearly articulate a specific research question or hypothesis that goes beyond a mere reiteration of Coseriu's ideas. The abstract would benefit from a clearer indication of what new insights or perspectives the analysis of *logos* in speech acts will bring. Concrete linguistic examples illustrating the interplay or divergence of *lógos semantikós* and *lógos apophantikós* in actual communicative contexts would significantly strengthen the paper's analytical depth. While the chosen topic is undoubtedly relevant for scholars in linguistic philosophy and Coseriu studies, the current abstract requires significant development to move from a descriptive overview to a robust, original argumentative piece.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.