Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Structural linguistics: Structural linguistics is a theoretical approach to language that views it as a system of interconnected elements, each of which is defined by its relationship to the other elements in the system, describing the structure of language at all levels, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Structural linguistics emerged in the early 20th century; most influential figures include Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, and Noam Chomsky. See also Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, N. Chomsky, L. Bloomfield, F. de Saussure._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Paul Ricoeur on Structural Lingustics - Dictionary of Arguments
II 4 Discourse/structural model/structural lingustics/Ricoeur: The eclipse of discourse was further encouraged by the tentative extension of the structural model beyond its birth place in linguistics properly speaking, and by the systematic awareness of the theoretical requirements implied by the linguistic model as a structural model. Extension of the structural model concerns us directly insofar as the structural model was applied to the same categories of texts that are the object of our interpretation theory. Originally the model concerned units smaller than the sentence, the signs of the lexical systems and the discrete units of the phonological systems from which the significant units of lexical systems are compounded. A decisive extension occurred, however, with the application of the structural model to linguistic entities larger than the sentence and also to non-linguistic entities similar to the texts of linguistic communication. As concerns the first type of application, the treatment of folktales by the Russian formalists such as V. Propp(1) marks a decisive turn in the theory of literature, especially as regards the narrative structure of literary works. The application of the structural model to myths by Claude Lévi-Strauss constitutes a second example of a structural approach to long strings of discourse; an approach similar to, yet independent of the formal treatment of folklore proposed by the Russian formalists. II 5 Postulates: First, a synchronic approach must precede any diachronic approach because systems are more intelligible than changes. Second, the paradigmatic case for a structural approach is that of a finite set of discrete entities. The paradigmatic position of systems constituted of finite sets of discrete entities lies in the combinatory capacity and the quasi-algebraic possibilities pertaining to such sets. These capacities and possibilities add to the type of intelligibility instituted by the first postulate, that of synchronicity. Third, in such a system no entity belonging to the structure of the system has a meaning of its own; the meaning of a word, for example, results from its opposition to the other lexical units of the same system. Fourth, in such finite systems, all the relations are immanent to the system. In this sense semiotic systems are "closed," i.e ., without relations to external, non-semiotic reality. II 6 The last postulate alone suffices to charactenze structuralism as a global mode of thought, beyond all the technicalities Of its methodology. Language no longer appears as a mediation between minds and things. It constitutes a world of its own, within which each item only refers to other items of the same system, thanks to the interplay of oppositions and differences constitutive of the system. Discourse/Ricoeur: At this extreme point language as discourse has disappeared. II 81 Structural Linguistics/interpretation/understanding/Ricoeur: [the approach of the structural schools of literary criticism] proceeds from the acknowledgement of what I have called the suspension or suppression of the ostensive reference. (>Reference/Ricoeur). The text intercepts the "worldly" dimension of the discourse - the relation to a world which could be shown - in the same way as it disrupts the connection of the discourse to the subjective intention of the author. place. According to this choice, the text no longer has an exterior, it only has an interior. To repeat, the very constitution of the text as a text and of the system of texts as literature justifies this conversion of the literary object into a closed system of signs, analogous to the kind of closed system that phonology discovered underlying all discourse, and which Saussure called langue. Literature, according to this working hypothesis, becomes an analogon of langue. >Langue/Ricoeur. 1. V. Propp, Morphology of the Folktale (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1958)._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Ricoeur I Paul Ricoeur De L’interprétation. Essai sur Sigmund Freud German Edition: Die Interpretation. Ein Versuch über Freud Frankfurt/M. 1999 Ricoeur II Paul Ricoeur Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning Fort Worth 1976 |
||
> Counter arguments against Ricoeur
> Counter arguments in relation to Structural Linguistics
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19