[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The systemic perspective vs the use perspective vs the knowledge perspective
I quickly read the Losonsky article and it makes clear his approach that
language by its nature divides dialectically into system and use.
However, there is an approach to the "philosophy of language" that offers a
"genealogical approach". Franson Manjali writes from this perspective and
makes a case that the "oscillating" movement of the emergence of Modern
Linguistics [its history] is a facet or face of the Eurocentric emergence
of Colonialism and Nationalism and the search for standards and rules that
showed the European languages as superior.
Franson suggests to understand the philosophy of modern language theory is
to understand the development of language studies as the companion of
empire as the construction of a "system of rule".
THIS history of language traces how the emergence of "linguistic science"
was a facet of the emergence of nation states. Three examples are offered.
1] the creation of "standards" [unified fields of exchange] below Latin and
above the vernaculars.
2] providing a new fixity to language which helped to build the "image" of
antiquity so central to the idea of "nation".
3] the creation of new "languages" and disciplines of "power".
The systematizing of languages into "complex" and "primitive" was a result
of this Eurocentric movement and approach to language.
I do not have a background in this area but I wonder if the understanding
that there are two distinct "themes" in language studies might not
be understood as version ignoring the power relationships enacted when
approaching the history of languages "as an object of study" which can be
traced to a particular situated historical event when Eurocentric power was
emerging as dominant.
This is an approach that views "ethics" as central to the study of language.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In my snuffling about on Losonksy, I found this interesting proceeding
> from 2009, "What Can We Learn From Bad Arguments?" This article is very
> well written, nice and clear.
> Apparently Losonksy embraces the historical development of language, but
> as a series of bad arguments that are later corrected, which later are
> discovered as bad arguments that are later corrected, and so on, while
> keeping the dualistic positions of system and use perspectives of language
> intact. He uses the dialectic between the two positions as a pedagogical
> tool (which we learn at the end of the paper).
> What he misses, however, is the notion of the social as a location for all
> the things that go missing in these two positions on language, the systemic
> and the use arguments. That is, how we come to know these arguments.
> What I mean is this:
> A structure of a language can only exist from practicing the language and
> conventions forming over time. This might be classified as Historical as in
> Capital H. The more formal aspects of language over longer periods of time.
> A use of a language can only exist from practicing the language and
> conventions forming over time. ?This might be classified as historical as
> in Lower-case h. The more ephemeral aspects of language over spontaneous
> periods of time.
> None of these perspectives and what they offer us can occur at all without
> humans being in the world interacting with one another. They cannot exist
> without us there, knowing them and practicing and practicing our languages,
> in the sense I am right now practicing the language each time I make a post
> here on XMCA, for example.
> That is why I was baffled at his rejection of the third perspective, as
> indicated by Robert Stainton, called the knowledge perspective. Losonsky
> "In Linguistic Turns I ignored this perspective. I believe that this
> perspective is a subordinate issue that divides along lines that divide the
> system and use perspectives. On the one side is systematic knowledge of
> language and on the other side is practical knowledge, or knowhow, that is
> used in coming to know what? particular speakers say on a given occasion."
> (p 1-2)
> How can Losonsky even write that sentence if there is no knowledge
> What he doesn't see (which is clear as day to me) is that the knowledge
> perspective requires both system and use perspectives to function, and can
> only arise in a social setting of learning, specifically the ZPD!?
> Neither side wins because neither side considers the other side in a
> socio-historical reality. Is that fair to say? (Culture is also in there,
> but for simplicity I am setting that to the side, because by setting the
> social aside, he loses culture too).
> The knowledge perspective seems to me to say: We can only use the language
> that we know. Furthermore, we come to know that language from learning it
> from a capable other, who in turn learned from a capable other, and so on
> through an historical environment (or by using language with a capable peer
> in spontaneous circumstances of speech opportunities arising in any given
> For me, this also involves the given and the new and how these combine to
> create meaning in a particular environment in space and time, i.e., meaning
> arising in a context.
> I will be ambulating over to Robert Stainton's work at some point...
> anyone care to join me?
> Kind regards,