The present study provides a critical-historical review of semiotics in Abharī’s view and aims to explain his encounter with the problems of the realm of semantics and his standpoints in this regard. Here, the authors have tried to evaluate and analyze some descriptions Full Text
The present study provides a critical-historical review of semiotics in Abharī’s view and aims to explain his encounter with the problems of the realm of semantics and his standpoints in this regard. Here, the authors have tried to evaluate and analyze some descriptions of denotation and its typology. Accordingly, relying on Abharī’s conception of the nature of denotation, his analysis of its typology, and an evaluation of his view as to the inefficiency of denotation of implication, the authors provide a critical account of this philosopher’s view while employing certain elements, such as the speaker’s will in transferring meaning, the role of interlocutor’s understanding in the correct construction of meaning, and thought structure. Logicians believe that denotation depends on context and have considered contextual awareness as a necessary condition. The authors have also explained that, in addition to this criterion, some other elements in the realm of meaning, the speaker, and the interlocutor affect the creation of denotation. Through moving the concept of denotation beyond the domain of single words and its vast application to sentences and, particularly, propositions and also following a non-quiddative approach in dealing with the specification of the concepts of the field of denotation, Abharī connects semiotics with semantic discussions. Here, Abharī’s views regarding semiotics have been presented in comparison to other thinkers. Some of his endeavors in this realm include redefining denotation based on the meaning-interlocutor model, providing two different interpretations of the place of context in the typology of denotation, criticizing Fakhr al-Dīn’s analysis of similar denotations and their distinction from the other two types of denotation through adopting a dependent or independent subject and considering evaluation-centeredness, criticizing the analysis of Khunaji and Kashi of the metaphorical nature of inclusion and implication denotation, criticizing Suhrawardī’s and Rāzī’s description of implicative-corresponding relations, and criticizing the inefficient approaches to implication denotation, and designing an image based on misunderstanding based on the plurality of mental transfers.