[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[James Ma]

Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message:

I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a
posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or
voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the
context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of
default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that.

Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which
post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have
existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their
ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example
the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind
those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended
and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object
of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language,
i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to
denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes
was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system.

It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. There's
more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a concept
(signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of
signification is not concerned with language but linguistics within which
language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become valid. From
Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised collective
norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible with that
norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that involves an
individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite
liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects (different
to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical structure of
Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the
official language or predominant dialect).

By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we
are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain
insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have
the will to meaning, so to speak.

James

*_______________________________________________________*

*James Ma  Independent Scholar *
*https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> 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/20181231/5c42e3d3/attachment.html