[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 am not sure of copyright but will send a copy to individuals who email me
I find Franson offers a genealogical way of approaching the history of
modern linguisticsthat is calling us to goes beyond the assumption that the
academic disciplines as currently constituted can answer our questions.
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> Have you a text you recommend by Manjali?
> My reference to systemic was not to posit the Vienna Circle's view, say,
> as defining THE systemic structure, but that in the course of any language
> over time there are structures created that are then inherited over an
> historical period that extends many lifetimes; I don't think that this
> strays from a notion of a genealogy, but maybe I am wrong.
> But then at the same time the use of the language can alter the language
> incrementally, and so this would explain the shift of the language that we
> observe in the differences between Elizabethan English of Shakespearian
> plays, and today's American English of television broadcasters, which also
> doesn't stray from a notion of genealogy, I don't think.
> Manjali sounds to be listening to Foucault, is that right?
> The problem that you outline of the dialectic view of language, as
> represented by Losonsky, has an appearance of dictating structures a priori
> than learning what they are; i.e., prescription over description. This is
> why I agree with you about the complex/primitive designations and how this
> is problematic.
> I don't think my suggestion supposes primitive and complex designations of
> language structures, just that there are structures present in a given
> language, and this structure has basic apparent traits, but over time these
> traits may shift because of the use of the language in the present moment.
> If language is a tool, and a tool is a kind of technology, then language
> will develop in a similar way to technology development (although perhaps
> it is better to say that they share family resemblances in their processes
> of development, as I don't mean to privilege one over the other).
> There is no dispute here that power relations are woven into these
> dynamics. They certainly are!
> Kind regards,