Referential sharpness

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under referential sharpness of a word , expression or predicate is understood in the semantics of the degree to which listeners recognize a statement with these linguistic elements to be true. It is a statistical quantity and ranges between −1 and +1.

The value +1 is achieved if all listeners accept the statement as true, the value −1 if no listener classifies the statement as true. If exactly half of the audience agrees with the statement, the referential sharpness is 0.

Examples

The following statements are usually 100% affirmed by listeners. They therefore have a referential sharpness of +1.

  • "Two times two is four."
  • "Dogs are animals."
  • "The Eiffel Tower is 327 meters high with the antenna on top."

Some, but not all, listeners will recognize the following sentences as true. The referential sharpness is therefore between −1 and +1.

  • "The Mona Lisa is the most famous painting in the world."
  • "The road is wet."
  • "The man in the gold helmet is not from Rembrandt van Rijn."

The following statement, however, can be clearly denied. It therefore has a referential sharpness of −1.

  • "One plus one is three."

Perceptions and statements

The type of possible evidence that the statement is true is decisive for the 'referential sharpness' of a statement. With regard to the proof of truth, we can differentiate between the following classes of statements:

Statements within the framework of an axiomatic system

In the context of mathematics and formal logic. In mathematics, where the Peano axioms apply: 2 * 2 = 4 . In propositional logic , if A is true and B is true, then (A and B) is also true. If A is true and if B is not true, then (A and B) is false.

Descriptions

  1. Measurements
    Information about length, weight and time using a calibrated rule. Also combinations of the mentioned measurement dimensions. The measuring accuracy depends on the accuracy of the calibration and the accuracy of the measuring equipment. In addition, there are fundamental uncertainties in measurements, which arise from the fact that the person measuring and the measuring apparatus are part of an overall system (cf. uncertainty , especially measurement; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ). Hans is 184 cm tall. The car drove (at time t at point x) 112 km / h.
  2. Counts
    Counts are used to summarize elements of the same category by specifying a number. In the case of concrete counts, counting areas ( this house ) are also specified.
    This house has 30 windows.
    Counts can only be as sharp as the counting category used. In this example, if the house has three openings that are unclear whether they are windows or hatches , the count will be fuzzy until that question is resolved.
  3. Estimates
    Estimates give the likely results of possible measurements and counts based on quick and intuitive information. The subjectively perceived level of security can be expressed in language.
    Hans should be about six feet tall.
    The car drove about 100 kilometers per hour.
  4. Descriptions
    Descriptions use categories of everyday language, the meaning of which is not linked to exact and calibrated standards.
    Hans is big. This house has many windows.
    It is important to be clear: The blurring of everyday language descriptions can be considerable. When someone says:
    Hans is of medium height. ,
    he can mean that Hans is between 180 and 185 cm tall, while another can mean a man of medium height as a man between 170 and 180 cm tall. Such descriptions can be made referentially sharper by means of a definition . For example if it is stipulated: Men between 20 and 50 years of age are called medium-sized if their height is between 172 and 182 cm.

Evaluations

  1. Fact decisions
    fact decisions are judgmental statements made by a trained and appointed arbitrator in a kind of fast-tracked because the game does not allow longer approval process. T. have consequences for the game, because a behavior that z. B. is rated as a foul , a predetermined sanction entails. (Some do not have to be limited to sporting competitions. Using Ludwig Wittgenstein's term ' language game ', some can be applied to all competitive communicative disputes.)
  2. Appraisals
    Appraisals are used to present people's past performance     in a judgmental way. B. are closely related to the assessments.
  3. reviews
  4. Assessments
  5. Expressions of opinion

Interpretations

  1. Interpretations of perception
  2. Suggested interpretations

Classifications

  1. Didactic terms
  2. Classical terms
  3. Nominative terms

More levels

A statement can be checked on two levels:

  1. demonstratively - in reality
    "This is a cow ."
    "This person is great ."
  2. by definition - in the internal language use
    "A cow is an animal ."
    "A cow is a beautiful animal ."

Application in everyday use

In everyday situations it is clear that the following sentences given without context relate to different verification strategies. (In all of the example sentences mentioned, the term "context-free" is not to be understood in the sense of the Chomsky hierarchy of context-free languages , but in such a way that initially no further information is given about the situation in which these sentences are uttered.)

(1) Two times two is four.

(2) Dogs are animals.

(3) The Eiffel Tower is 327 meters high with the antenna on top.

(4) Niels Bohr played in the Danish national soccer team when he was young.

(5) The Mona Lisa is the most famous painting in the world.

(6) The road is wet.

(7) 'The man in the gold helmet' is not by Rembrandt van Rijn .

With sentence (1) we will say that the thing is naturally correct, with (2) we rely on our everyday knowledge and on the semantic rules of German, with (3) - (5) we refer to Lexicon or what credible sources say, with (6) something that can be perceived by the senses, with (7) a discussion among Rembrandt experts.

The central point here is: When the sentences are uttered, background knowledge is always called up, which generates possible contexts.

In everyday language use, we therefore quickly recognize the degree of agreement these sentences are likely to achieve. (1) - (3) hardly anyone will contradict. With (4) Brockhaus and with him the presenter of a quiz program on television can be wrong, but in the soccer recordings you will be able to find out how it actually behaves. When the verification is done, we know whether the sentence is true or false. (5) is either a non-verifiable expression of opinion or we have to develop criteria that allow the sentence to be verified. And we have to agree on these criteria.

With sentences like (6) there are 'clear cases' in which we know how it behaves when we point to the streets: It has just rained very heavily and the street is not covered at this point = the sentence is true . The road is clearly absolutely dry = the sentence is wrong. However, with (6), as with all sentences that refer to historical knowledge and experience, there are always 'semantic gray areas'. If someone utters (6), someone can counter that the road is damp , but not wet .

Semantic goal setting

The concept of referential sharpness is connected with the requirement that for all statements that deal with the truth of the statements , ways of an operationalizable formulated proof of the truth are given. This basically addresses and demands the implications of the truth based on consensus theory .

literature

  • Werner Zillig: Natural languages ​​and communicative norms . Narr, Tübingen 2003