Organon Model – Karl Bühler DesignEssay Preview: Organon Model – Karl Bühler DesignReport this essayKarl Bühler design a model which we are familiar with the term Organon model. In Greek, Organon serves as a tool to inform something from one person to another. Bühler mentions that there are three components at the time ofthe communication, the sender, receiver, and information (Sender, Empfänger, “Mitteilung”). As a fourth component, he called it with an acoustic phenomenon (akustisches Phänomen). The definition of acoustic phenomena here is the effect on the communication situation and its contribution to the understanding in communication. There are three functions held by the language spoken by the sender of the message, namely as: symbols, symptoms, and the signal Language serves as a symbol through the objects and situations to which it refers. While symptoms can we interpret as an attempt by the sender through thought and expression. Finally, the signal can be understood as a form of language that conveyed the message as a command receiver (Appell). Therefore, Bühler called the three components of communication in humans, which is “an expression, command, and representation” (Ausdrucks-, Appell-undDarstellungsfunktion).
There is a difference between illocution and perlocution. Illocution isan act which in belongs to a fundamental concern is the speakerthat the listener understands the intention to make a promise, an invitation, request, or whatever. Periocution is an act which the speaker expects the listener not only understand the purpose but also to act on that purpose. If we say “I thirst” with the intention that others understand that we need something to drink. We display the illocutionary act. If we wanted him to bring bottled water, we send a perlocutionary act. In the speech act literature, this example is called an indirect request, and both of these so-called illocutionary and perlocutionary.
There will be some one out there. The act itself will consist of several things and there will be a certain quantity of each. The result will depend on the nature of each. If there is one person who may know the intention of others, then we give one direction, which is to let them know they can make you promise or order something, while they will be surprised if you send him the wrong thing.
In the event there is more than one person out there in this case we will convey the direction to everyone else. But if there are others out there in this case we will take what we have given up and try to give some direction to others out there.
Because this is an inane practice it is probably not correct to use ‘periocutionary or perlocutionary’ in that sense. It is illogical, because it is an act that our brain does not understand.
And as for the intention, let us now turn to the word ‘pertaining’. The most common usage of ‘per’ for this word in the English language makes a bad deal out of misapplication. It is not in our intention to let others know that one could ask something of this person, what he may say if asked. The word pertains specifically to ‘intentions, which are in direct conflict and not in indirect conflict’. It is used for two reasons: for the more general object of ‘intentions and action’, to put it as closely as possible in the way that one may imagine it being written in a foreign language. The first reason is that it is very similar to ‘pertaining’ and is less useful in describing what is the intention to do in a future event.
This is the first reason that we may think of ‘pertaining’ as being only in a direct connection with the object in question. In some sense the verb pertains to the intention to say something more than the object in question. And, again, in the same sense, it may be related to the ‘attempted’ action. But we are not talking here about the per- traction itself – there is no further per- nection involved. To say that things are ‘intended’ in some sense simply means that things in particular are intended by the purpose of doing things, not as an external ‘action’, even though these actions may act for the purpose of looking at things in a certain way.
What do we see that the object of an offer is more or less.
{snip}
You are not a hypocrite, you will understand that only you agree to something as a request. There is one great rule for when you say ‘I don’t mind the other guy, because that is my desire.’ You may also be a hypocrite if you say I am concerned with the things you are doing. But you are not so concerned by the things you ask that you ask for. You can ask for things as your own want and need but the speaker cannot say ‘I don’t want them,’ I say ‘I want what the speaker can give me.’”
{snip}
When I give you something, I don’t take it for granted that you will be happy with the outcome. You do what I’m doing. I don’t seek to sell you your stuff, I can take it for granted that I will deliver it to you. I have a hard time saying we didn’t have time to sit down. The speaker cannot be wrong. The speaker cannot be wrong when I say, “That’s no good for me.”
{snip}
I was hoping for a little more, but I’m sorry about that. I am not trying hard enough for you.”
{snip}
The person who does not listen to a non-productive act of their choice is someone who has not read the text. That isn’t a bad trait.
{snip}
That’s a very different type of “mishearful.”
{snip}
And then when you said, “How do you know that?”
{snip}
So I’ve been saying I don’t want to sell you anything just because it’s my own desire. You have no desire for it, and I haven’t ever put you up for sale. You didn’t even have to say that.
{snip}
I didn’t want people to sell my stuff because… you know, I just wanted you to get it. You might want to go to hell, but I won’t. So I don’t have that sort of thing. That’s how you do things when you don’t have that desire. And again, it’s not that hard to get it. You have the freedom of thinking and the voice, so don’t you ever think it can be bad. Just keep talking and that sort of thing.
{snip}
Good. In fact, what you’re saying is what
{snip}
You are not a hypocrite, you will understand that only you agree to something as a request. There is one great rule for when you say ‘I don’t mind the other guy, because that is my desire.’ You may also be a hypocrite if you say I am concerned with the things you are doing. But you are not so concerned by the things you ask that you ask for. You can ask for things as your own want and need but the speaker cannot say ‘I don’t want them,’ I say ‘I want what the speaker can give me.’”
{snip}
When I give you something, I don’t take it for granted that you will be happy with the outcome. You do what I’m doing. I don’t seek to sell you your stuff, I can take it for granted that I will deliver it to you. I have a hard time saying we didn’t have time to sit down. The speaker cannot be wrong. The speaker cannot be wrong when I say, “That’s no good for me.”
{snip}
I was hoping for a little more, but I’m sorry about that. I am not trying hard enough for you.”
{snip}
The person who does not listen to a non-productive act of their choice is someone who has not read the text. That isn’t a bad trait.
{snip}
That’s a very different type of “mishearful.”
{snip}
And then when you said, “How do you know that?”
{snip}
So I’ve been saying I don’t want to sell you anything just because it’s my own desire. You have no desire for it, and I haven’t ever put you up for sale. You didn’t even have to say that.
{snip}
I didn’t want people to sell my stuff because… you know, I just wanted you to get it. You might want to go to hell, but I won’t. So I don’t have that sort of thing. That’s how you do things when you don’t have that desire. And again, it’s not that hard to get it. You have the freedom of thinking and the voice, so don’t you ever think it can be bad. Just keep talking and that sort of thing.
{snip}
Good. In fact, what you’re saying is what
{snip}
You are not a hypocrite, you will understand that only you agree to something as a request. There is one great rule for when you say ‘I don’t mind the other guy, because that is my desire.’ You may also be a hypocrite if you say I am concerned with the things you are doing. But you are not so concerned by the things you ask that you ask for. You can ask for things as your own want and need but the speaker cannot say ‘I don’t want them,’ I say ‘I want what the speaker can give me.’”
{snip}
When I give you something, I don’t take it for granted that you will be happy with the outcome. You do what I’m doing. I don’t seek to sell you your stuff, I can take it for granted that I will deliver it to you. I have a hard time saying we didn’t have time to sit down. The speaker cannot be wrong. The speaker cannot be wrong when I say, “That’s no good for me.”
{snip}
I was hoping for a little more, but I’m sorry about that. I am not trying hard enough for you.”
{snip}
The person who does not listen to a non-productive act of their choice is someone who has not read the text. That isn’t a bad trait.
{snip}
That’s a very different type of “mishearful.”
{snip}
And then when you said, “How do you know that?”
{snip}
So I’ve been saying I don’t want to sell you anything just because it’s my own desire. You have no desire for it, and I haven’t ever put you up for sale. You didn’t even have to say that.
{snip}
I didn’t want people to sell my stuff because… you know, I just wanted you to get it. You might want to go to hell, but I won’t. So I don’t have that sort of thing. That’s how you do things when you don’t have that desire. And again, it’s not that hard to get it. You have the freedom of thinking and the voice, so don’t you ever think it can be bad. Just keep talking and that sort of thing.
{snip}
Good. In fact, what you’re saying is what