551
Our papel is based on Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984a, on the papers discussing Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984a collected in Conte (ed.) 1986, and on Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984b and 1984c.
552
The different figures in Petöfi 1982a, 1982b, and 1984 represent the semiotic relations from different points of view. The semiotic pyramid in the present paper involves an important new angle as compared to the figures mentioned above in that it parallels the views concerning the significans component and the significatum component. This presentation is mainly a result of discussions with W. Heydrich.
As to the results of research into the questions discussed here we first of all think of Putnam’s respective works (cf. Putnam 1975, 1978, and Heydrich-Petöfi 1983).
As to the semiotic relations cf. also Raible 1984, and Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984b.
553
The system of symbols we use in the present paper is an extended and revised version of the symbol system applied in Petöfi 1984.
554
As to distinguishing structural and procedural linguistics, and the aspects of dynamics in linguistics cf. Ballmer (ed.) 1985, Eikmeyer 1983, Petöfi 1983a, and Rieger (ed.) 1984.
555
The terms relatum (relatum universe) and interpretamentum are new terms in the terminology used until now.
The term relatum (and, accordingly, also the term relatum universe) indicate the state-of-affairs configuration which has in earlier papers been called world / text world (cf. the last time in Petöfi 1983b). Since the term world structure in the name of the text-structure world-structure theory sometimes caused misunderstandings -even with colleagues who otherwise know the conception of the theory well (cf., for example, Gülich-Raible 1977), it appeared to be necessary to substitute the term «world» (in all its usages) by another term: the term relatum appeared to be appropriate (cf. the Latin verb referre). Thus, the name of the theory has accordingly been changed for text-structure relatum-structure theory /TeSReST/.
The term interpretamentum had to be introduced, because, on one hand, (a) in the earlier name of the state-of-affairs configuration indicated now by interpretamentum (namely in text correlate /TCo/) the correlate-constituent has not been used in the same sense as the expression correlate indicating one of the semiotic components; on the other hand, (b) the state-of-affairs configuration earlier called text correlate contains more states of affairs than the number of those states of affairs is which are to be assigned to the text to be interpreted; this state-of-affairs configuration is not only the interpretation of the text itself, it is the interpretation of the text communicated (and interpreted) in a given situation, consequently, it contains states of affairs interpreting also the situation itself (cf., for example, Petöfi 1983b).
556
As already indicated in the title of this section, here we want to deal with the interpretation of the construction of verbal texts in general. In other words this means to discuss general questions of the pair <Ss, Sm> with no regard to whether the interpreter intends to investigate the construction in itself or in some context of the functional embedding (cf. Figure 3). In this section and in the following one we will use besides the term interpretation also the term analysis, first of all in connection with the interpretation of the significans component of the text, where the measure of intersubjectivity is higher than in the case of the interpretation of the significatum.
557
As to the terms continuity, connexity, etc. cf. Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984a, and Conte (ed.) 1986. In the latter one cf. especially the papers discussing Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984a and the answer paper of Hatakeyama, Petöfi, and Sözer to them.
558
Concerning coherence (and connectedness in general) cf. also Heydrich-Petöfi (eds.), Neubauer (ed.), Petöfi-Sözer (eds.), and Sözer (ed.).
559
As to the propositional canonical language used in the framework of the TeSWeST / TeSReST/, cf. Petöfi 1982a.
560
Concerning this analysis cf. also Hatakeyama-Petöfi-Sözer 1984c, where the German, Hungarian, Japanese, and Turkish versions of this chapter have been analysed.