According to postmodernists, who claim Saussure disciples: a) it comes down to lenguaje.b) the language is good for comunicarse.c) all comes down to signos.d) abstract concepts are signs. But what is the rationale to defend such nonsense? As they say based on the ideas of the famous linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, author of the classic "Course in General Linguistics." Well, let's take a look at the "Cours de Saussure to see if it's true that the postmodern pontificate:
a) With respect to all comes down to language, Saussure tells us that language should identify 2 factors: language (langue) and speech (parole) and to define the object of linguistics: "you have to get from the first time in the field of language and take it as a standard of all other manifestations of language. "Regarding the language, a different system of signs that correspond to different ideas, Saussure tells us (on pg. 144): "But this definition still leaves its tongue hanging out of their social reality, and makes it an unreal thing, since they cover more than one aspect of reality, the individual aspect, we need a speaker for mass there is a language ... at no time was there the language of social fact. "In other words, Saussure tells us that language, or its essential part is the language (understanding that language should not be confused with the language because it is part of that) constitute the whole of reality (omnitudo realitatis), but presupposes that the language "speaking mass" or partnership (not limited to langue), and this in turn presupposes the external nature (which also reduces to the language or a system of signs). And with regard to language on page tells us. 50: "The language has a single side and social side, and you can not conceive of one without the other." Later Saussure tells us that the language also needs the historical event or time: "But in these circumstances, the language is viable, non-living, we have not taken into account rather than social reality, not historical fact. " The same is said about the language on pg. 50: "language requires both a established and evolving; at all times is a current institution and a product of the past. "That is language, as sovereign as the postmodern irrationalism, presupposes the social and historical reality time (since the language and the language are a historic product). And, last but not least, Saussure says that language also depends on the brain: association ratified by the collective consensus, and which together constitute the language are realities that have their seat in the brain "(p. 59 .) Saussure also tells us that what is designated a "foreign language" is important in the tongue and cites historical facts (such as the Roman conquest), the domestic politics, institutions, customs, etc. as important facts for the language (pp. 67-68). Then it is true that language, and essential part of language, are "the whole of reality" because they presuppose other realities are not confined to the langue.
b) With respect to foreign language dogma that does not serve to communicate anything, Saussure says, "language is a set of linguistic habits which allow an individual to understand and be understood, and if it be understood is" communicating " , then it is false absurdity of the postmodern articulates fidei.
c) The sign language is a "combination of concept and sound-image" (p. 129) or union of meaning (semantic content) and significant (auditory or sensory image representation), and no doubt that the signs are part of the language, but elements of the circuit of words between 2 subjects such as brains, sound waves speech organs, ears, etc. (P. 54-55) are linguistic signs nor non-linguistic signs. either society or the history are semiotic signs or objects, then it is false postmodern nonsense that is not based on the ideas of positivist Saussure.
d) Saussure tells us (in the page. 54) that concepts are "facts of consciousness" and on pp. 128-129 states that the linguistic sign is a 2-sided psychological entity: an abstract concept and sound-image is sensory and "material" as opposed to the concept or meaning, then we can not say that the concept is a sign, since the latter is a unit that the concept fails cover completely, as the meaning or concept is only part of the sign, and the other part is the signifier and "these two elements are intimately linked and that call each other" (pág.129). And finally I will quote Saussure to show how absurd it is to argue that the concepts are signs in themselves (excluding the signifier), "The linguistic entity exists only thanks to the significant association and meaning, if not retained just one of those elements, vanishes, instead of a concrete object before us only an abstraction. At all times in danger of not more than grabbing a part of the body believed to cover the entirety "(p. 178).
Source Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure, Editorial Losada, SA Buenos Aires, 1945 (378 pags).
0 comments:
Post a Comment