The Semantic Fondations of Determining the Meaning of the Text from the Point View of John Searle and Shahid Sadr

Determining the meaning of the text is one of the important issues of contemporary language philosophy. Philosophical hermeneutics, in response to this problem, believes in the indeterminacy of the meaning of the text. Determining the meaning of the text has been proposed with regard to the many meanings that determination has in terms of ontology, semantics, epistemology and methodology, and among them, the determination of the meaning of the text in the sense of "discovering the meaning of the speaker" has been discussed in the light of semantic foundations.

Determining the meaning of the text is defined in the triad of "possibility, probability, and determination" and this matching has been done by emphasizing the views of Searle and Shahid Sadr with library and analytical methods and sometimes using hybrid methods and linguistic philosophy.

John Searle has explained the meaning of the text by relying on basics such as the theory of speech act, Intentionality, and collective Intentionality, and by emphasizing methods such as concentration and linguistic descriptions, classification of speech acts and rules, and by emphasizing the anatomy of the brain, and in other words, He has achieved the explanation of the organization of the institutional communication of meaning; And on the other hand, Martyr Shahid Sadr, relying on the issues of status (vaze) and Strict conjugation (qarn akid), the theory of usage (Istimal), the authority of emergence (hojat) and the linguistic system, and a special effort in the social understanding of the text (nas), relying on the method of manifestation and possibilities, in a kind of natural definition of determining their meaning in the light Social understanding is achieved.

The findings of this research show that the two researchers have a point in common in "no reference to extra-language", "regularity of language", "authenticity of appearance and rules", "contextualism" and in "confusion between the definite article and the spoken verb", "linguistic communication unit", "criterion of meaningfulness and provability", "institutional explanation of meaning", "theory of implication", "meaning and intention" and "theory of application and use" have been distinguished from each other. Therefore, the intellectual difference between the two intellectual traditions in the issue of determining meaning can be seen as arising from the intellectual paradigm of the two thinkers, on the other hand, it should be noted that the social rules of meaning and relying on the rules of consistency in Searle's view and his reliance on institutional realities and Shahid Sadr's emphasis on linguistic concentration and authenticity arising from the degree of truth and probability is more rooted in two intellectual paradigms, institutional and proof of meaning, and it should be examined in the context of meaning; Searle's reliance on individual Intentionality and his rejection of it in terms of collective Intentionality are seen very faintly in the Shahid Sadr view’s, perhaps if it were not for the fallacy of confusion between validity and truth and the science of the principles of jurisprudence did not find its language in philosophy and theoretical sciences, the attempt The theoretical approaches to connect the layer of probability to determination, or the layer of suspicion to certainty in the science of the principles of jurisprudence, do not remain incomplete. The efforts of analytical philosophy in the analysis of intention in the subjective and universal layers and his deep investigations on issues based on intention in the science of principles and the intellectual system of Shahid Sadr are effective and can change them.