[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[Andy Blunden]

Well James, the entire line from Saussure to Levi-Strauss to 
Derrida and Foucault always seemed alien to me; based on a 
dualism at the beginning and railing against dualism at the 
end. But the achievements of structuralism and 
post-structuralism are there for all to see. A proof, I 
suppose, of the fact that every lens gives you a unique 
insight - there is no one right "unit of analysis."

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 1/01/2019 6:50 am, James Ma wrote:
> 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
> /
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden 
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto: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/20190101/bad1050c/attachment.html