[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[James Ma]

Many thanks Andy. I'll get back to you as soon as I finish the job (I've
been working relentlessly with MPhil candidates, even no time to catch up
piano practising!). James

Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> 于 2018年12月21日周五 03:03写道：

> Getting to your first topic, now, James ...
>
> I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to
> "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as
> pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from
> historical development. The structural view always gives us certain
> insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in
> making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side
> and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a
> one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like
> geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage
>
> What do you  think?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote:
>
> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking
> with some of your comments:
>
>
>
> First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics
> (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's
> semiotics to Saussure's semiology".  When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on
> signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind.  As I see it,
> Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the
> evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing.
> Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach
> to language have relevance for CHAT.  Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic
> methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within
> CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean
> exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of
> thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action.  For
> example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181221/ddaa97f1/attachment.html