Saturday, January 21, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Ke, J. (2004). Self-organization and Language Evolution: System, Population and Individual. City University of Hong Kong, doctoral thesis. Available (pdf): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.101.8777%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=THIHT8z8EIetsAKzie3qAg&usg=AFQjCNE4hK2YMINJaE5O3TmUlJHayBOP0g
???
???
more on Saussure
from the Wikipedia entry on de Saussure:
"most modern linguists and philosophers of language consider his ideas outdated" - par. 1
Saussure's most influential work, Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale), was published posthumously in 1916 by former students Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye on the basis of notes taken from Saussure's lectures in Geneva. (Legacy, par. 1)
language may be analyzed as a formal system of differential elements, apart from the messy dialectics of real-time production and comprehension. Examples of these elements include his notion of the linguistic sign, which is composed of the signifier and the signified. Though the sign may also have a referent, Saussure took this last question to lie beyond the linguist's purview. (Legacy par. 2)
Saussure posited that linguistic form is arbitrary, and therefore all languages function in a similar fashion. According to Saussure, a language is arbitrary because it is systematic in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Also, all languages have their own concepts and sound images (or signifieds and signifiers). Therefore, Saussure argues, languages have a relational conception of their elements: words and their meanings are defined by comparing and contrasting their meanings to one another. For instance, the sound images for and the conception of a book differ from the sound images for and the conception of a table. Languages are also arbitrary because of the nature of their linguistic elements: they are defined in terms of their function rather than in terms of their inherent qualities. Finally, he posits, language has a social nature in that it provides a larger context for analysis, determination, and realization of its structure.(Legacy par. 5)
Holland[9] notes that up to the 1950s Saussure enjoyed some legitimacy in linguistics, but with the cognitive revolution which began in 1957, Chomsky had "decisively refuted Saussure." She writes: "Much of Chomsky's work is not accepted by other linguists . . . I am not asking you to accept Chomsky's own linguistics, however. My point is simply that Chomsky's work rendered Saussure's linguistics, indeed much of post-Saussurean linguistics, obsolete. I am not claiming that Chomsky is right, only that Chomsky has proven that Saussure is wrong. Linguists who reject Chomsky claim to be going beyond Chomsky, or they cling to phrase-structure grammars. They are not turning back to Saussure."
"Saussure, considered the most important linguist of the century in Europe until the 1950s, hardly plays a role in current theoretical thinking about language." Koster, Jan. (1996)
"Saussure's views are not held, so far as I know, by modern linguists, only by literary critics, Lacanians, and the occasional philosopher." Holland, Norman N. (1992) The Critical I, Columbia University Press, ISBN ISBN 0-231-07650-9, p. 140.
"most modern linguists and philosophers of language consider his ideas outdated" - par. 1
Saussure's most influential work, Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale), was published posthumously in 1916 by former students Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye on the basis of notes taken from Saussure's lectures in Geneva. (Legacy, par. 1)
language may be analyzed as a formal system of differential elements, apart from the messy dialectics of real-time production and comprehension. Examples of these elements include his notion of the linguistic sign, which is composed of the signifier and the signified. Though the sign may also have a referent, Saussure took this last question to lie beyond the linguist's purview. (Legacy par. 2)
Saussure posited that linguistic form is arbitrary, and therefore all languages function in a similar fashion. According to Saussure, a language is arbitrary because it is systematic in that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Also, all languages have their own concepts and sound images (or signifieds and signifiers). Therefore, Saussure argues, languages have a relational conception of their elements: words and their meanings are defined by comparing and contrasting their meanings to one another. For instance, the sound images for and the conception of a book differ from the sound images for and the conception of a table. Languages are also arbitrary because of the nature of their linguistic elements: they are defined in terms of their function rather than in terms of their inherent qualities. Finally, he posits, language has a social nature in that it provides a larger context for analysis, determination, and realization of its structure.(Legacy par. 5)
Holland[9] notes that up to the 1950s Saussure enjoyed some legitimacy in linguistics, but with the cognitive revolution which began in 1957, Chomsky had "decisively refuted Saussure." She writes: "Much of Chomsky's work is not accepted by other linguists . . . I am not asking you to accept Chomsky's own linguistics, however. My point is simply that Chomsky's work rendered Saussure's linguistics, indeed much of post-Saussurean linguistics, obsolete. I am not claiming that Chomsky is right, only that Chomsky has proven that Saussure is wrong. Linguists who reject Chomsky claim to be going beyond Chomsky, or they cling to phrase-structure grammars. They are not turning back to Saussure."
"Saussure, considered the most important linguist of the century in Europe until the 1950s, hardly plays a role in current theoretical thinking about language." Koster, Jan. (1996)
"Saussure's views are not held, so far as I know, by modern linguists, only by literary critics, Lacanians, and the occasional philosopher." Holland, Norman N. (1992) The Critical I, Columbia University Press, ISBN ISBN 0-231-07650-9, p. 140.
de Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistics. Online preview here.
Wikipedia. Ferdinand de Saussure. Father of structuralism.
Holdcroft, D. (1991). Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.
Herman & Gardels, Vehicular traffic flow, Scientific American 260 (6)?, 1963
R. Herman, K. Gardels. Vehicular Traffic Flow. Scientific American. p. 35-43. December 1963.
Wikipedia. Ferdinand de Saussure. Father of structuralism.
Holdcroft, D. (1991). Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.
Herman & Gardels, Vehicular traffic flow, Scientific American 260 (6)?, 1963
R. Herman, K. Gardels. Vehicular Traffic Flow. Scientific American. p. 35-43. December 1963.
(lack of) progress report
Over a year since I last posted, and almost nothing done on this topic...very little to say for myself. And, as I look down the blog, scan it in a cursory way, I don't even have what I need to get started on it. Here's what's going on:
1. I took out a Cooley book from the library, and ordered another: V. Cook's Inside Language. Cook is really where I start. Chapter 1 is: Right metaphor, wrong conclusion. I kind of wanted to start there and see where it took me, but that book might be a week getting here and I just ordered it today. I don't really want to depend on others' writing but there are a number of people I must research before I really lay it all out.
2. Where are the people who have already written about language as a self-organized system? I have a small collection somewhere (don't see it at the moment) and will unite my ideas using theirs, I hope.
3. What about Saussure? I assume he's the person I'm thinking about, from long ago, who set out (and I agreed) the idea that language was a social contract. I think it's necessary to go over that, review what it does and how it functions, before trying to explain it in any way.
4. Somewhere I have a piece of paper where I tried to organize my chapters, the progression of ideas; I didn't get very far. I got frustrated and gave it up for another season, this one the Christmas one, where one gets absolutely nothing done unless one has enormous unwrapped reservoirs of energy. Finally, after an exhausting Christmas season and a 2-week single parenting stint, I got a minute today with which to go to the library. How I am able to use that Cooley, remains to be seen. I have some organizing to do, as you can see.
As of now, I start. Sorry for the delay. It's like a New Year's resolution, only it's a little more inspirational than cleaning the garage!
1. I took out a Cooley book from the library, and ordered another: V. Cook's Inside Language. Cook is really where I start. Chapter 1 is: Right metaphor, wrong conclusion. I kind of wanted to start there and see where it took me, but that book might be a week getting here and I just ordered it today. I don't really want to depend on others' writing but there are a number of people I must research before I really lay it all out.
2. Where are the people who have already written about language as a self-organized system? I have a small collection somewhere (don't see it at the moment) and will unite my ideas using theirs, I hope.
3. What about Saussure? I assume he's the person I'm thinking about, from long ago, who set out (and I agreed) the idea that language was a social contract. I think it's necessary to go over that, review what it does and how it functions, before trying to explain it in any way.
4. Somewhere I have a piece of paper where I tried to organize my chapters, the progression of ideas; I didn't get very far. I got frustrated and gave it up for another season, this one the Christmas one, where one gets absolutely nothing done unless one has enormous unwrapped reservoirs of energy. Finally, after an exhausting Christmas season and a 2-week single parenting stint, I got a minute today with which to go to the library. How I am able to use that Cooley, remains to be seen. I have some organizing to do, as you can see.
As of now, I start. Sorry for the delay. It's like a New Year's resolution, only it's a little more inspirational than cleaning the garage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)