My sense is that you're drawing an artificial dichotomy between semantics and what you call pragmatics. To me, both seem about meaning — it seems more a matter of degree than a binary difference. Pragmatics seems just a larger context than the individual words.
We may be having semantic difficulties, though — to wit, how we define "semantics". We agree (?) semantics is about meaning, but I was confused by, "Semantics are the abstract rules, and pragmatics are the real-world application." I don't see semantics as rules but as associations between words and what they refer to. (Syntax is rules.)
Regardless, you seem to be building something here, so I'll just see where you go with it!
Thank you for commentating. The delineation I am drawing between semantics and pragmatics is the former representing the meaning of words and sentences devoid of context (the abstract rules), with the latter dealing with the meaning of words and sentences *in context* (the real usage).
You’re correct I am building something, and every concept would need to make sense and fit, for you can’t build on a contradiction - a thought must be coherent. The next few articles will discuss meta philosophy and metaphysics, with my views of language fleshed out afterwards as being bulld on top of this structure. That is why comments and arguments against my views are invaluable. A construction needs to be stressed tested.
My sense is that you're drawing an artificial dichotomy between semantics and what you call pragmatics. To me, both seem about meaning — it seems more a matter of degree than a binary difference. Pragmatics seems just a larger context than the individual words.
We may be having semantic difficulties, though — to wit, how we define "semantics". We agree (?) semantics is about meaning, but I was confused by, "Semantics are the abstract rules, and pragmatics are the real-world application." I don't see semantics as rules but as associations between words and what they refer to. (Syntax is rules.)
Regardless, you seem to be building something here, so I'll just see where you go with it!
Thank you for commentating. The delineation I am drawing between semantics and pragmatics is the former representing the meaning of words and sentences devoid of context (the abstract rules), with the latter dealing with the meaning of words and sentences *in context* (the real usage).
You’re correct I am building something, and every concept would need to make sense and fit, for you can’t build on a contradiction - a thought must be coherent. The next few articles will discuss meta philosophy and metaphysics, with my views of language fleshed out afterwards as being bulld on top of this structure. That is why comments and arguments against my views are invaluable. A construction needs to be stressed tested.