TELOS-BASED REFLECTIVE CONSTITUENTS OF MEANING IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE
Keywords:
teleology, teleological judgement, meaning construal, mental representations, linguistic representations, reflective thinking
Abstract
Over the last two millennia the Aristotelian category of purposefulness “Telos” has firmly established its status as an ultimate meaning defining essence. Political discourse mirrors motives and goals of interacting individuals and institutional entities. The notion of the final purpose (Telos) in the given account is viewed as the speaker’s subjective and idealised mental representation of reality to strive for. The main contention in this inquiry is that teleological investigation of political discourse is linguistically valid. The idea propounded in this research is that teleology and pragmatics are both focused on the phenomenon of purposefulness, and may complement each other. However, the status of Telos as a final goal supervenes on pragmatic principles and transcends pragmatic conceptual horizons. Linguistic representations of facts of reality in political discourse may serve as a basis for teleological reflection, judgement and, correspondingly, for construal of meaning on the principles of moral teleology. Teleologically-based reflective constituents of meaning in political discourse may be expressed explicitly, may be implicated as intended speaker’s meaning, or may be unintended by the speaker, but ascribed by the addressee. The priorities in this research are rather shifted from the juxtaposition “what is said and what is meant” to “what is said and what is recovered”. For various reasons utterances in political discourse are subject to teleological reflection. Teleologically-based reflective constituents of meaning are the outcome of the speaker’s or addressee’s subjective appraisal of moral and ethical propriety of an utterance. Teleological reflection is instrumental in bestowal on an utterance of the addressee’s reflective sense, which goes beyond what the speaker intended to convey and in addition to what the utterance refers to. The principal idea upheld in this account is that teleologically-based reflective constituents of meaning are an immanent component of the semantic content of an utterance with overt or covert teleological assumptions. Teleologicallybased reflective constituents of meaning incorporate teleological explanations and teleological reflective sense representations.
References
1. Alexander, V. N. (2009) The Poetics of Purpose. Biosemiotics. № 2. Pp. 77–100.
2. Aristotle. (1998) The Metaphysics. Revised ed. / Trans. by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Books Ltd. 528 p.
3. Austin, J.L. (2013) Performative Utterances. The Philosophy of Language. International Sixth Edition. / A.P. Martinich and David Sosa (eds.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 291–300.
4. Auxter, T. (1982) Kant’s Moral Teleology. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. 193 pp. Synopsis. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Kant_s_Moral_Teleology.html?id=d-bWAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y.
5. Ball, D., Rabern, B. (2020) Introduction to the Science of Meaning. The Science of Meaning. Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics. / Derek Ball and Brian Rabern (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 1–45.
6. BBC News. 2023. 24 October. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67201107.
7. Borg, E. (2005. Saying What You Mean: Unarticulated Constituents and Communication. Ellipsis and Non-sentential Speech. Dordrecht: Springer. Pp. 237–262.
8. Borg, E. (2006) Review: Literal Meaning. Francoise Recanati. Mind. Vol. 115. №. 458. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 461–465.
9. Borg, E. (2008) Intention Based Semantics. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. / E. Lepore, B.C. Smith (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 250–266.
10 Brentari, C. (2020) Ernst Cassirer’s Reading of Jakob von Uexküll. Between Natural Teleology and Anthropology. Jakob von Uexküll and Philosophy. Life, Environments, Anthropology. / F. Michelini and K. Köchy (eds.). Routledge. Pp. 106–121.
11. Chandler, D. (2007) Semiotics: The Basics. Oxford: Routledge. 307 pp.
12. Chandler, D., Munday, R. (2020) Reflection Theory. A Dictionary of Media and Communication. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 410.
13. Coady, C.A.J. (2007) Dirty Hands. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. / Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge (eds.). 2nd ed. Vol 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 532–540.
14. Crane, T. (1995) Representation. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. / T. Honderich (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 769–770.
15. Daly, C. (2013) Philosophy of Language. An Introduction. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbery. 340 pp.
16. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2024) Teleology. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology.
17. Falcon, A. (2023) Aristotle on Causality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. / Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/aristotle-causality/.
18. Forbes, G. (1994) Modern Logic. A Text in Elementary Symbolic Logic. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 397 p.
19. Global Impact of the War in Ukraine: Billions of People Face the Greatest Cost-of-Living Crisis in a Generation. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 1 June 2022. Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/webflyer/global-impact-war-ukraine-billions-people-face-greatest-cost-living-crisis-generation.
20. Hauser, G.A. (1991) Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., University of Colorado. 210 pp.
21. Horgan, T., Timmons, M. (1999) Troubles for New Wave Moral Semantics: the ‘Open Question Argument’ Revived. Philosophical Papers. Vol. XXI. №. 3. Memphis, Tennessee: Memphis State University, pp. 153–175.
22. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2005) Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 300 p.
23. Jaszczolt, K. (2009) Pragmatic Compositionality, Syntactic Direction Principle, and the Contextualism/Minimalism Debate. Meaning, Content and Argument. / J.M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia (eds.). Bilbao: University of the Basque Country Press. Pp. 347–364.
24. Jaszczolt, K. (2010) Situated Temporal Reference: A Case for Compositional Pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics. №. 42. Pp. 2898–2909.
25. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2012) Propositional Attitude Reports: Pragmatic Aspects. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 305–328.
26. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2023) Semantics, Pragmatics, Philosophy: A Journey through Meaning. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 438 p.
27. Kant, I. (1987) Critique of Judgment. / Trans. by Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 575 p.
28. Kant, I. (1998) The Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 120 p.
29. Locke, J. (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. / Peter H. Nidditch (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 867 p.
30. Matthen, M. (2009) Teleology in Living Things. A Companion to Aristotle. / Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 335–347.
31. Matthews, P.H. (2014) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 443 p.
32. Moore, G.E. (2017) Principia Ethica. New York: SophiaOmni Press. 188 p.
33. Neiman, S. (2024) Why the World Still Needs Immanuel Kant. The New York Times. 2024. 17 April. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/arts/immanuel-kant-300-nniversary.html.
34. Ogden, C.K., Richards, I.A. (1989) The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 396 p.
35. Peirce, C.S. (1992) The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 1 (1867–1893). Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 448 p.
36. Pietroski, P.M. (2018) Conjoining Meanings. Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 404 p.
37. Rachlin, H. (2021) Teleological Behaviorism: Origins and Present Status. Contemporary Behaviorisms in Debate. / Zilio, D., Carrara, K. (eds.). Springer, Cham. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77395-3_1.
38. Recanati, F. (2003) Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 235 p.
39. Recanati, F. (2005) Literalism and Contextualism: Some Varieties. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. / G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 171–196.
40. Ruse, M. (2004) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Cambridge: Harward University Press, 2004. 371 p.
41. Russell, B. (1983) Locke’s Theory of Knowledge. History of Western Philosophy. Boston, Sydney, London: George Allen & Unwin. Pp. 584–595.
42. Shakespeare, W. King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1. Retrieved from: https://www.allgreatquotes.com/king-lear-quotes-34/.
43. Shevchenko, O.I. (2014) Lingual Expression of Teleological Aspects of Meaning in English Publicistic Discourse. Scientific Letters of Academic Society of Michal Baludansky. Kosice. Vol. 2, № 1, pp. 133–136.
44. Silk, A. (2017) Metaethical Contextualism. The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. 1st Edition. Routledge, New York. Pp. 102–118.
45. Stalnaker, R.C. (2014) Context and Content. Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 248 p.
46. Stasimioti, M. (2024) Do Linguistics Still Matter in the Age of Large Language Models? Natural Language Processing. Retrieved from: https://slator.com/do-linguistics-still-matter-in-theage-of-large-language-models/.
47. Szabó, Z.G. (2000) Compositionality as Supervenience. Linguistics and Philosophy. № 23, pp. 475–505.
48. Thames, R.H. (2021) Devices and Desires: Concerning Kenneth Burke’s The War of Words. The Journal of the Kenneth Burke Society. Volume 15, Number 1. Retrieved from: https://kbjournal.org/thames-devices-desires.
49. The Daily Mail. 2022. 27 July.
50. The Daily Mail. 2023. 20 October.
51. The Financial Times. 2023. 23 June.
52. The Guardian. 2016. 4 September.
53. The Holy Bible. (2011). New International Version. Biblica. London: Hodder & Sloughton, 1262 pp.
54. The New York Times. 2024. 17 April. 55. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. / Tom McArthur (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992. 1184 p.
56. The United Nations. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zerocoalition.
57. The Washington Post. 2016. 23 September.
58. Thompson, M. (2016) Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics? London: Vintage Books. 418 p.
59. Tomalin, B. (2017) Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics? Review. Training, Language and Culture, 1(3), pp.110–114.
60. Uexkull, J. von. (2010) A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With a Theory of Meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 248 p.
61. Unnsteinsson, E. (2014) Compositionality and Sandbag Semantics. Synthese. №. 191(14). Pp. 3329–3350. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0449-7.
62. Wang, M. (2020) Linguistic Semiotics. Peking University Linguistics Research. Singapore: Springer. 397 p.
63. Woodfield, A. (2010) Teleology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232 p.
64. Woolhouse, R. (1994) Locke’s Theory of Knowledge. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 146–171.
2. Aristotle. (1998) The Metaphysics. Revised ed. / Trans. by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Books Ltd. 528 p.
3. Austin, J.L. (2013) Performative Utterances. The Philosophy of Language. International Sixth Edition. / A.P. Martinich and David Sosa (eds.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 291–300.
4. Auxter, T. (1982) Kant’s Moral Teleology. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. 193 pp. Synopsis. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Kant_s_Moral_Teleology.html?id=d-bWAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y.
5. Ball, D., Rabern, B. (2020) Introduction to the Science of Meaning. The Science of Meaning. Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics. / Derek Ball and Brian Rabern (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 1–45.
6. BBC News. 2023. 24 October. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67201107.
7. Borg, E. (2005. Saying What You Mean: Unarticulated Constituents and Communication. Ellipsis and Non-sentential Speech. Dordrecht: Springer. Pp. 237–262.
8. Borg, E. (2006) Review: Literal Meaning. Francoise Recanati. Mind. Vol. 115. №. 458. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 461–465.
9. Borg, E. (2008) Intention Based Semantics. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. / E. Lepore, B.C. Smith (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 250–266.
10 Brentari, C. (2020) Ernst Cassirer’s Reading of Jakob von Uexküll. Between Natural Teleology and Anthropology. Jakob von Uexküll and Philosophy. Life, Environments, Anthropology. / F. Michelini and K. Köchy (eds.). Routledge. Pp. 106–121.
11. Chandler, D. (2007) Semiotics: The Basics. Oxford: Routledge. 307 pp.
12. Chandler, D., Munday, R. (2020) Reflection Theory. A Dictionary of Media and Communication. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 410.
13. Coady, C.A.J. (2007) Dirty Hands. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. / Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge (eds.). 2nd ed. Vol 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 532–540.
14. Crane, T. (1995) Representation. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. / T. Honderich (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 769–770.
15. Daly, C. (2013) Philosophy of Language. An Introduction. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbery. 340 pp.
16. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2024) Teleology. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology.
17. Falcon, A. (2023) Aristotle on Causality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. / Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/aristotle-causality/.
18. Forbes, G. (1994) Modern Logic. A Text in Elementary Symbolic Logic. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 397 p.
19. Global Impact of the War in Ukraine: Billions of People Face the Greatest Cost-of-Living Crisis in a Generation. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 1 June 2022. Retrieved from: https://unctad.org/webflyer/global-impact-war-ukraine-billions-people-face-greatest-cost-living-crisis-generation.
20. Hauser, G.A. (1991) Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., University of Colorado. 210 pp.
21. Horgan, T., Timmons, M. (1999) Troubles for New Wave Moral Semantics: the ‘Open Question Argument’ Revived. Philosophical Papers. Vol. XXI. №. 3. Memphis, Tennessee: Memphis State University, pp. 153–175.
22. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2005) Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 300 p.
23. Jaszczolt, K. (2009) Pragmatic Compositionality, Syntactic Direction Principle, and the Contextualism/Minimalism Debate. Meaning, Content and Argument. / J.M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia (eds.). Bilbao: University of the Basque Country Press. Pp. 347–364.
24. Jaszczolt, K. (2010) Situated Temporal Reference: A Case for Compositional Pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics. №. 42. Pp. 2898–2909.
25. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2012) Propositional Attitude Reports: Pragmatic Aspects. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 305–328.
26. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2023) Semantics, Pragmatics, Philosophy: A Journey through Meaning. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 438 p.
27. Kant, I. (1987) Critique of Judgment. / Trans. by Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 575 p.
28. Kant, I. (1998) The Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 120 p.
29. Locke, J. (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. / Peter H. Nidditch (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 867 p.
30. Matthen, M. (2009) Teleology in Living Things. A Companion to Aristotle. / Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 335–347.
31. Matthews, P.H. (2014) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 443 p.
32. Moore, G.E. (2017) Principia Ethica. New York: SophiaOmni Press. 188 p.
33. Neiman, S. (2024) Why the World Still Needs Immanuel Kant. The New York Times. 2024. 17 April. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/arts/immanuel-kant-300-nniversary.html.
34. Ogden, C.K., Richards, I.A. (1989) The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 396 p.
35. Peirce, C.S. (1992) The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 1 (1867–1893). Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 448 p.
36. Pietroski, P.M. (2018) Conjoining Meanings. Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 404 p.
37. Rachlin, H. (2021) Teleological Behaviorism: Origins and Present Status. Contemporary Behaviorisms in Debate. / Zilio, D., Carrara, K. (eds.). Springer, Cham. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77395-3_1.
38. Recanati, F. (2003) Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 235 p.
39. Recanati, F. (2005) Literalism and Contextualism: Some Varieties. Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. / G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 171–196.
40. Ruse, M. (2004) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Cambridge: Harward University Press, 2004. 371 p.
41. Russell, B. (1983) Locke’s Theory of Knowledge. History of Western Philosophy. Boston, Sydney, London: George Allen & Unwin. Pp. 584–595.
42. Shakespeare, W. King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1. Retrieved from: https://www.allgreatquotes.com/king-lear-quotes-34/.
43. Shevchenko, O.I. (2014) Lingual Expression of Teleological Aspects of Meaning in English Publicistic Discourse. Scientific Letters of Academic Society of Michal Baludansky. Kosice. Vol. 2, № 1, pp. 133–136.
44. Silk, A. (2017) Metaethical Contextualism. The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. 1st Edition. Routledge, New York. Pp. 102–118.
45. Stalnaker, R.C. (2014) Context and Content. Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 248 p.
46. Stasimioti, M. (2024) Do Linguistics Still Matter in the Age of Large Language Models? Natural Language Processing. Retrieved from: https://slator.com/do-linguistics-still-matter-in-theage-of-large-language-models/.
47. Szabó, Z.G. (2000) Compositionality as Supervenience. Linguistics and Philosophy. № 23, pp. 475–505.
48. Thames, R.H. (2021) Devices and Desires: Concerning Kenneth Burke’s The War of Words. The Journal of the Kenneth Burke Society. Volume 15, Number 1. Retrieved from: https://kbjournal.org/thames-devices-desires.
49. The Daily Mail. 2022. 27 July.
50. The Daily Mail. 2023. 20 October.
51. The Financial Times. 2023. 23 June.
52. The Guardian. 2016. 4 September.
53. The Holy Bible. (2011). New International Version. Biblica. London: Hodder & Sloughton, 1262 pp.
54. The New York Times. 2024. 17 April. 55. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. / Tom McArthur (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992. 1184 p.
56. The United Nations. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zerocoalition.
57. The Washington Post. 2016. 23 September.
58. Thompson, M. (2016) Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics? London: Vintage Books. 418 p.
59. Tomalin, B. (2017) Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics? Review. Training, Language and Culture, 1(3), pp.110–114.
60. Uexkull, J. von. (2010) A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With a Theory of Meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 248 p.
61. Unnsteinsson, E. (2014) Compositionality and Sandbag Semantics. Synthese. №. 191(14). Pp. 3329–3350. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0449-7.
62. Wang, M. (2020) Linguistic Semiotics. Peking University Linguistics Research. Singapore: Springer. 397 p.
63. Woodfield, A. (2010) Teleology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232 p.
64. Woolhouse, R. (1994) Locke’s Theory of Knowledge. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 146–171.
Published
2024-10-21
How to Cite
Shevchenko, O. I. (2024). TELOS-BASED REFLECTIVE CONSTITUENTS OF MEANING IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. New Philology, (95), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2024-95-11
Section
Articles
ISSN 
.png)
