Talk:Indexicality

Philosophy: Logic / Language / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language
	Contemporary philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Referential Indexicality[edit]

I do not get the explanation about Unicorns drink ambrosia. To me, the point of that example would have to have something to do with the fact that Unicorns and Ambrosia don't exist. But that would make it more an example of discussions about truth assessment (is it true or not that Unicorns drink Ambrosia and what's there to be said about it given that both do not exist) then of referential content? Anyway in the explanation nothing is said about Unicorns and ambrosia being non-existent while that should be at least commented upon given that it is obvious the case if one uses these concepts in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelle1975 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the example, it was confusing that the categories referenced are non-existant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing weasel words[edit]

Does anyone else here feel that the 'weasel words' warning was in itself a play on the concept of Indexicality?

I don't understand why there is the weasel word warning on this page. I made a small change to the prose and so now I think it is fair to remove the weasel warning. Not that this needs to be said, but anyone who disagrees is free to discuss or put the warning back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Eisenberg (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

comment[edit]

Am liking the simpsons example!

As am I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.82.6.10 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart v. Smokey[edit]

Why are we assuming that Smokey Bear, rather than Bart Simpson, is correct? I'm tempted to POV tag this. --Jammoe (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yo momma" as an indexical[edit]

Could it be attributed that the proliferative "Yo momma" jokes, although pejorative, should be considered as a modern example of "Indexical". Evidently, someone who notates "Yo momma" wouldn't be referring to their momma, and therefore is indexical? 129.180.158.136 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really any relation. Any statement that alludes to something else is indexical. That means that basically all statement are indexical. But yes indexicality is very commonly exploited consciously in jokes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive rewriting and expansion in progress[edit]

Just a note to anyone else who might have their eye on this article -- I am in the process of fleshing it out considerably, with special focus on linguistic anthropology, certainly the scholarly field that has gotten the greatest mileage out of the concept of indexicality in recent years. I am not really competent to comment in any detail on the philosophical issues surrounding indexicality, so I won't be able to add much there, which is likely to leave the article a bit unbalanced, but you can only write about what you know! I welcome any input from anyone else with knowledge on the subject and am happy to discuss any issues arising from my changes. Dan 11:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, this has been lacking. I am happy to help in any way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]