[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[Arturo Escandon]

Thanks Andy and David for your insights.

As you say, Andy, the dichotomy signifier-signified is not very Hegelian to
say the least. In my opinion, just by reading the Cours, I can tell
Saussure started with some kind of Hegelian approach but, because he did
not capture the real dimension of dialectics, ended up producing shell-like
categories, shortcuts of Hegelian theory. The same applies to Durkheim and
the rest of structuralists.

David, I did not know who the actual source of the
segregationist/integrationist categories was. I had a laugh with your
comment on Harris placing himself among the integrationists.

Anyway, I think there is some research opportunity here about making more
precise observations of what constitutes speech or communication in our
tradition. 'Word meaning" for instance, should not be rendered as
'utterance meaning' in English? What is 'word'? Or its use it's just fine
as word allows us to establish a relation between more objetive and less
objective forms of communication. In that case 'word' serves the purpose of
keeping intact the process dimension of meaning making.

I am more familiar with Bakhtin and Akhutina views on theories of
communication and their discussion on Saussure, yet I abandoned such
subtleties a decade ago, so it was nice to be reminded of how the
scheletons of modern lingustics still play a big part in our own imaginary.

Akhutina, T.V., 2003. The theory of verbal communication in the works of
M.M. Bakhtin and L.S. Vygotsky, Journal of Russian and East European
Psychology, 41, pp. 94-114.

Best

Arturo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190316/21ef5624/attachment.html