Organon model

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Organon model (1934) by Karl Buhler is a character model to illustrate his character notion of a natural language . It is also a communication model , since language is represented in terms of its communicative function ( language function ).

background

Recourse to ancient Greece

Karl Bühler used the “ Kratylos ” by Plato as the basis for his remarks . In this, Socrates describes the word as organon and thus the language as a whole as an organon (tool), with the help of which a person communicates something about things to others.

Bühler describes this as the three-foundation scheme : "one - the other - about things". He illustrates this relationship in a 1 Background first rough Organon model:

        die Dinge
            O
            :
            :
            :
       orga : num
            O
           - -
          -   -
         -     -
        -       -
      O           O
    einer     der andere

Criticism of behaviorism

Bühler's Organon model goes hand in hand with a critique of the “material thinking” of “physicalistic behaviorism ”, which “renewed the flatus vocis nominalism of the early Middle Ages in a modern form.”

The model

The Organon model

Bühler draws the Organon model “a second time”. This is the illustration on the right. When one speaks of Bühler's Organon model, this diagram is meant.

The graphic elements have the following meaning in the representation:

  • "The circle in the middle symbolizes the concrete sound phenomenon".
  • The triangle stands for the sign . "The sides of the drawn triangle symbolize [...] the semantic functions of the (complex) language sign" as "three variable moments".
  • The sign is related to the sender , to the recipient and to objects and facts .

According to Bühler's “thesis of the three language functions”, these relationships are based on different semantic functions. According to Bühler, a language sign has an expressive function , an appeal function and a representation function . In the model, this is shortened by Bühler (1934)

  • Expression
  • appeal
  • presentation

called.

The expression function makes a sign a symptom , the appeal function makes it a signal and the representation function makes it a symbol . Bühler says literally: “The arrays of lines symbolize the semantic functions of the (complex) language sign. It is a symbol by virtue of its assignment to objects and facts, a symptom (signs, indicium) by virtue of its dependence on the sender, whose interiority it expresses, and a signal by virtue of its appeal to the listener, whose external or internal behavior it controls like other traffic signs. "

The distinction between sound phenomena and language signs

Bühler emphasizes - in contrast to behaviorism and with reference to the difference between phonology and phonetics - the difference between the physical sound phenomenon and the sign. This is illustrated in his model by the fact that the triangle (sign) is not identical with the circle (sound phenomenon).

According to Bühler, a sign is both more and less than the mere physical sound phenomenon. For Bühler, this is the result of two psychological factors. He calls this

  • Principle of abstractive relevance
  • apperceptive supplement

The principle of abstractive relevance states that a physical phenomenon, "the thing of the senses, this perceptible something hic et nunc does not have to enter into the semantic function with the full range of its concrete properties".

The fact that the triangle protrudes beyond the circle indicates "that what is sensually given is always given an apperceptive addition".

The language functions

For Karl Bühler, the concrete speech event forms the starting point for his investigation and determination of human language. In his Organon model he comes to the conclusion that the performance of the linguistic sign is threefold:

The language functions in detail

The expression function

For Bühler, the symbol is “Symptom (Anzeichen, Indicium)” in relation to the transmitter. This makes the sign an "expression" of the sender. Bühler is the example that the way someone writes something on the blackboard with chalk is an expression of his personality. This suggests that for Bühler the expression function is (also) an unconscious, non-intentional function.

In the interpretation of the Organon model or in the discussion of the expressive function of language, this is mostly ignored or it remains unclear whether one demands a desire to express oneself. It is said that “the expression of psychological states of the speaking person” is a “basic function” of linguistic signs. The function of a sign (in the sense of linguistic expression), be it to express “personal thoughts and feelings” of the speaker, and the sign is a “symptom” insofar as it expresses the “inwardness of the sender (expressive function of the Language)". In the expression “language function [is about]: the speaker has the need to express himself, to express himself, to reveal his inner being; Self-Discussion ".

Examples such as "How beautiful!", "Au!" Or "Oh!" Are typical of the expression function. mentioned (as admiration).

The roll call function

Since the sign is aimed at the recipient, there is an appeal function . Here a sign acts as a signal (triggering) that prompts the recipient to do something. Warning calls in the animal kingdom also have this function. The first childish sounds are also among the appellative signs a baby uses to signal that it wants to be fed.

The display function

By referring to objects or facts, the sign has a representation function . In this case, the focus is on content information about an object that the sender wants to communicate (e.g. in factual texts, instructions, etc.). At Bühler, the display function is only represented semantically by reference. With the inclusion of the display function, he has not only taken into account the "aspect of communicating with one another", but also that of "communicating about things".

The connection between the three functions

All three functions are always present in the communication situations. However, in a specific case, one of the three functions is always dominant over the others. So stands z. B. in the case of advertising, the appeal function in the foreground.

The inclusion of an expressive and an appeal function serves Bühler to “limit the undisputed dominance of the representational function of language” and to emphasize that sender and recipient “have their own positions in the speech act. They are not just a part of what the message is about, but they are the exchange partners, and that is why it is ultimately possible that the media product of the sound has its own symbol relation to one and the other. "

For Bühler, the Organon model illustrates “three largely independently variable [.] References”. It is the case that "each of the three relations, each of the three meaning functions of the linguistic signs opens up and thematizes its own area of ​​linguistic phenomena and facts."

The Organon model as a communication model

In contrast to other character models, Bühler's model has four digits; in contrast to three-digit models, the character producer is added. In this way, Bühler differentiates between sender and receiver and therefore regards language as a communication model from the outset.

The Bühler Organon model is regarded as the "forerunner of the information-theoretical communication model" and as "one of the most famous communication models".

Criticism and contextualization

The advantages of the model

The Organon model can not only be used to describe the use of linguistic signs; you can also use it to explain the use of signs in general (including non-linguistic signs) (see the above reference to warning calls in the animal kingdom). The usability of the Organon model as a model for the use of all types of signs makes it particularly suitable for describing processes of linguistic communication, because in these processes the occurrence of linguistic signs is always coupled with that of non-linguistic signs. To give only very elementary examples of this coupling, facial expressions, gestures and the manner of speaking also play a role in oral (language) communication in addition to language signs, and in written (language) communication, in addition to language signs, the type also plays a role of the writer and the font used.

The disadvantages of the model

One of the criticisms of the Bühler model is the neglect of the influence of the speech constellation on linguistic expression.

Jakobson's communication model based on Bühler can also be viewed as a criticism of Bühler's Organon model.

Contextualization

In the literature it is emphasized that the organon model should not be seen in isolation, but in connection with Karl Bühler's “axioms” .

See also

literature

  • Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language (=  UTB for science . Volume 1159 ). 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, ISBN 3-8252-1159-2 , pp. 24–33 (first edition: 1934).
  • Piroska Kocsány: Basic Linguistics Course: a workbook for beginners . Fink, Paderborn 2010, p. 26 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Organon model  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. a b Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 24 (first edition: 1934).
  2. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 25 (first edition: 1934).
  3. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 27 (first edition: 1934).
  4. a b c d e f g h Karl Bühler: Speech theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 28 (first edition: 1934).
  5. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 33 (first edition: 1934).
  6. In an essay on the sentence (1918), Bühler spoke of “announcement, triggering and representation”, cf. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 33 (first edition: 1934).
  7. Cf. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 27 f . (First edition: 1934). ; Bühler's organon model . In: Helmut Glück (Hrsg.): Metzler Lexikon Sprache . 4th edition. Metzler, Stuttgart, Weimar 2010.
  8. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 44 (first edition: 1934).
  9. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 32 (first edition: 1934).
  10. Ludwig Borkowski: Formal logic . Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1976, p. 4 .
  11. Peter Ernst: German Linguistics (=  UTB. 2541 ). WUV, Vienna 2008, p. 38 .
  12. ^ Organon model of language . In: Bussmann (Ed.): Lexicon of Linguistics . 3. Edition. 2002.
  13. Kürschner: Grammatical Compendium . 4th edition. 2003, ISBN 3-8252-1526-1 , pp. 230 .
  14. Kürschner: Grammatical Compendium . 4th edition. 2003, ISBN 3-8252-1526-1 , pp. 230 .
  15. ^ Ulrich: Language . In: Basic Linguistic Concepts . 5th edition. 2002.
  16. ^ Trabant: Semiotics . 1996, p. 82 .
  17. ^ So Trabant: Semiotics . 1996, p. 82 .
  18. Bühler speaks of “dominance phenomena”, cf. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 32 (first edition: 1934).
  19. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 30 (first edition: 1934).
  20. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 31 (first edition: 1934).
  21. Karl Bühler: Language theory: The representation function of language . 3. Edition. G. Fischer, Stuttgart et al. 1999, p. 32 (first edition: 1934).
  22. ^ Trabant: Semiotics . 1996, p. 82 .
  23. Peter Ernst: German Linguistics (=  UTB. 2541 ). WUV, Vienna 2008, p. 38 .
  24. Peter Ernst: German Linguistics (=  UTB. 2541 ). WUV, Vienna 2008, p. 39 .
  25. Peter Ernst: German Linguistics (=  UTB . Volume 2541 ). WUV, Vienna 2008, p. 40 .