Because it seems to me that the notion of the arbitrariness of the relationship between the signifier and signified could be a critique of the correspondence theory of truth (under which, I think, truth is seen as a property of assertions, and assertions are linguistic, but then correspondence, or the, supposedly accurate, relationship between the signified, or reality, and signifier represented by the assertion can be seen, again, from a structuralist perspective, as arbitrary. Though I am unsure whether structuralist linguistics would be applied to assertions, or if they just apply to singular words or phrases)
Then, this critique could be used to develop further theories of truth. Though my question is not specifically concerned with this (possible) critique (though id be interested if you think it’s valid, I’m not entirely sure) and more generally if philosophers have discussed structuralism (or possibly post-structuralism) into theories of truth
I know that Saussure didn't call himself a structuralist; but because of my own studies in poststructural thought, I've come to align him in that way.
I was wondering something - so, people come up with 'false etymologies,' which often take the form of looking at the symbol and finding some sort of artificial association that isn't related, historically, to that word's usage. I.e. people say that "history" is equivalent to "his story," which doesn't have anything to do (literally or historically) with the meaning of that word....
But so I got to wondering. Isn't Saussure's linguistics (not that it's the only kind allowed) kind of contingent upon the fact that the 'meaning' of a word is something created by an agreement among speakers inside of a community? And doesn't that then imply that in a community in which people agree that the etymological root of a word is directly related to (or influential upon) the meaning of that word, even if people make up the etymology - doesn't this influence what the word means at that given point in time?
I don't know Saussure's linguistics that well. I studied him in a philosophy class and mostly interpreted him metaphysically: i.e. he appears to be an idealist (at least pertaining to the occurrence of word usage in a psyche), rather than a materialist; and he appears to be an empiricist (relying on the history of physical objects, i.e. time-slices of sound, for his evidence for his claims), rather than a rationalist. A few other distinctions are present, as well.
However it seems to me then that it's like this: "history" does contain the meaning implied by the false etymology contained above, if it's valid for people to critique (feminist critique?) 'history' as being primarily masculine, or written by the 'victorious' males throughout history. I.e. it's "his-story." And people who say that it's the etymology, well, it will have been incorrect to identify that historically; however, saying that it's the etymology and indicating a particular meaning from it definitely looks to me like it changes the explicit meaning of the word during that particular period of the history of that word's usage. And if I were looking back on it from a future history, identifying this or that time period in which people believed that that were the etymology, then I would say that, yes, that did become the etymology of that word's usage by virtue of the fact that people behaved as if it did.
I can see this failing at one
... keep reading on reddit ➡I would think Wittgenstein, or perhaps some structured method of language analysis that has takes its inspiration from authors like Derrida, or maybe Deleuze.... But I don't really know. Is it possible to commensurate distinct theories of linguistic systems/semiotics? Thanks.
For an introductory comp.ling. lecture I'm writing I'm framing the opposition between rule-based and data-driven methods as part of a deeper opposition in linguistics in general between rationalist and empiricist approaches to the field.
Now, Grimm and the Junggrammatiker are quite clearly empiricist in their approach I think, even though they didn't use corpora and the statistical tools of modern empiricists. Chomsky, on the other hand, is clearly rationalist. But I'm not sure how to classify Saussure and the structural approach. Do any of you folk have any thoughts on how best classify the structuralists? Or other thoughts on the question, for that matter?
"Randomized Manipulation of Early Cognitive Experience Impacts Adult Brain Structure"
News article about it
(I also featured in the latest monthly Wiki-based science summary)
Is there more interesting research about contents and methods etc of childhood education/learning/...? Is there a subreddit dedicated to such?
I was looking for applications of augmented reality in early childhood education and apparently just last month there was this article.
https://ibb.co/SQWmLv8 https://ibb.co/310ws4M
Selam! I watched once a video where Nouman Ali Khan was demonstrating that there is a kind of linguistic symmetry in Ayat Kursi - where the first and last sentence/segment, the second and penultimate, the third and the last third, and so one, until every couple would match in theme or linguistics, leaving the middle sentence a sort of symbolical knot that tied them together.
Then I watched other videos claiming the same phenomena regarding other Surahs, so I decided to try and find out by myself if there was any such thing all over the Qur'an. So I did and I found out every Surah has a ring structure within itself or a mirror symmetry when coupled with another Surah. I decided to share one of my findings - it's about Surah 'Abasa. I am sharing this one because it's a relatively short Surah and the phenomena is clear enough to be understood even by people who have never read the Qur'an.
Let me know your thoughts on this and hit me up if you want to read other works like this (about other Surahs). I would like to find out if it will be accepted as a thing or if it will be rejected. I welcome all criticism as long as it's respectful.
Thank you
Do verbs tend to end in vowels, or consonants, across languages? How about nouns and modifiers?
I remember hearing something about a trend to this effect, but I forget the details, and I can't find any papers on it. Any links would be much appreciated!
By implications I mean mainly:
-
That language is based only on difference, therefore there is no positive relationship between the 'real' external world and the signs which represent them, or the signs themselves.
-
That language is already completed at the time a human enters into it, and the process of that acquisition is what transforms that human into a speaking/conceptualizing subject.
-
That because human knowledge, and the ability to communicate it, are mediated through language, then the human being as a subject is always outside of something which could be called 'real'-is always located at a specific moment in the history of people's attempts to approximate and communicate that 'real'.
This notion has a lot of really useful concepts and points of departure, and it merges very well with marxism. Especially as marxism is lacking in a sense of a subject or individual human: structuralist thought can and has provided good suggestions for thinking about this. Althusser, Badiou, Zizek etc but I've also found it useful when connecting it to Gramsci.
Which is why I'm wondering if there's been any criticisms of structuralist ontology that are considered "definitive" by some academics in the way that Chomsky's theories are considered a "definitive" alternative to structuralist linguistics. Or if Chomsky's criticisms can also be extended out like structuralism has been, and so Chomsky is himself that challenge to a structuralist ontology. (I'm not very well read on linguistics in general so I couldn't be sure about this myself)
I figure any positivists would challenge it by nature, but are there any criticisms that have been developed that convincingly challenge a structuralist theory of the subject?
Title. Post-structuralism is really important in other fields, and because it's a linguistic theory, I'm wondering how it's viewed in linguistics.
Hello. I'm currently working on a research project and came across a question. Could language be expressed as graphs, as social networks or the Internet often are?
I'm not really talking about the more typical semantic or syntactic trees, but perhaps something more complex? For example, one paragraph is the hypergraph of another paragraph and therefore they have relationship X.
Apologies, but I'm having a bit of trouble formulating my ideas as my research is still in its beginning phase. I was hoping that if anyone could point me to some work on this topic I would be able to do some more studying.
Any feedback or advice is appreciated. Thanks!
I dont know if I spelled some words right but you know what sub reddit this is
I'm starting with the Saussure's Course in General Linguistics and I was wondering about if linguists have developed or adopted other methodological postures and, if so, the quality of their results.
Like most of us I have a lot of time on my hands, considering doing a few hours of Spanish study a day. I'm at a B1+ level. Right now my study typically includes watching Spanish language TV, reading and writing exercises, occasionally chatting with people via language exchange.
Are there any good non-clickbait resources or blogs you know of on how to structure this type of self study? Thanks!
Are there linguistic sentence structures which make it more clear who is being referred to when talking about same sex people?
My friends and I like singing folk songs together, occasionally we swap the genders or roles but find this sometimes obfuscates the narrative.
Taking the below example, what would be the best way to make it more obvious which line is about who...
The lark in the morning he rises off his nest, He goes home in the evening with the dew all on his chest, And like the jolly ploughboy he whistles and he sings, He goes home in the evening with the dew all on his wings.
Rodger the ploughboy he is a dashing blade, He go whistling and singing over yonder leafy shade, He's met with pretty Simon he's handsome I declare, And he's far more enticing than the birds all in the air.
One evening coming home from the rakes of the town, the meadows been all mowed and the grass has been cut down, As I should chance to tumble all in the new-mown hay, Oh, it's kiss me now or never love, this bonnie lad did say
When that day twas over n the sun had left the sky, His mother chanced to notice how he twinkled in the eye, It was the pretty plough-boy a Simon he did say, For he caused my to tumble all in the new mown hay.
He's a health to all ye ploughboys wherever ye may be, Who likes to have a bonny lad a sittin on his knee With a jug of good old cider he'll whistle and he'll sing, For a ploughboy is more happy than a Prince or a king.
This might not be the best place to ask, but is someone able to give me a clear description of linguistic structuralism? I looked it up but am unable to fully grasp and understand it.
Thank you again!
Hey there I just stumbled upon this subreddit from a google search and thought it would be a great place to ask some questions so I hope this is cool.
So, I'm a Linguistics Major, graduating next semester, and a big fan of Black Metal. I am not a musician in any sense at all though so here I am. I'm writing a paper for my class "English Sound Structure" specifically about rhyming structure and metrical structure in Black Metal music. I'm not concerned about the actual music, only the words that accompany it. I know it doesn't typically rhyme and relies mostly on prose, but since it has such a different structure from most genres that's what made it interesting to write about for me.
I'm probably using all the wrong terms for you guys here, but in your experience how would you describe the lyrical structure of a Black Metal song? How do you create it? Does rhyming come into play at all? Are there any rules you follow or purposely break when song-writing? Are there any patterns you've picked up on? Even within a couple songs or one artist?
If you need me to clarify anything feel free to ask. I just want a musicians perspective on the topic. Thanks in advance!
