DOCSLIB.ORG

Language, Semantics and Ideology Language, Semantics and Ideology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Language, Semantics and Ideology Language, Semantics and Ideology LANGUAGE, SEMANTICS AND IDEOLOGY LANGUAGE, SEMANTICS AND IDEOLOGY Michel Pecheux St. Martin's Press New York © Fran�ois Maspero 1975 English Iranslation © Harban, N agpal 1982 References, bibliography and index by Ben Brewster All rights reserved. For information, write: St. Martin's Press, Inc" 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010 Printed in Hong Kong First published in the United States of America 1982 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Pecheux, Michel, 1938- Language, semantics, and ideology. Translation of: Les verites de La Palice. Bibliography: p. Includes index. I. Languages-Philosophy. 2. Semantics. I. Title. PJ06. P3913 1981 401 81-5337 ISBN 0-312-46915-2 AAeR2 Contents Translators Noll VII Littl, Prejawry Nol< VIII AckMwl,dg'mrots x Introcluction I PART I LINGUISTICS, LOGIC AND PHIL­ OSOPHY OF LANGUAGE I A Glance at the Historical Develop­ ment of the Relationship between 'Theory of Knowledge' and Rhetoric in regard to the Problem of Determination 2 I 2 Metaphysical Realism and Logical Empiricism: Two Forms of Regressive Exploitation of the Sciences by Idealism 41 PART" FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE TO THE THEOR Y OF DISCOURSE 3 Lang"' and Ideology 55 4 Determination, Name Formation and Embedding 61 5 Articulation of U nerances, Impli- cation of Properties, Sustaining Effect 6g 6 Subject, Centre, Meaning 83 PART III DISCOURSE AND IDEOLOGY(IES) 7 On the Ideological Conditions of the ReproductionjTransformation of the Relations of Production 97 8 Ideology, Interpellation, 'Munchausen Effect' 103 9 The Subject-Form of Discourse 110 v v, Con/tntJ PART IV DISCURSIVE PROCESSES IN THE SCIENCES AND IN POLITICAL PRACTICE 10 Epistemological Break and Subject­ Form of Discourse: There is no Pure 'Scientific Discourse' 133 II Marxism-Leninism Transforms the Relationship between the Subject-Form of Discourse and Political Practice 143 12 The Subject-Form of Discourse in the Subjective Appropriation of Scien- tific Knowledges and Political Practice 155 Conclusion '7' Appendix, A Scientific Theory of Propaganda? 20' Appendix 2 Some Possible Repercussions on Lin- guistic Research 206 Appendix 3 The French Political Winter: Beginning of a Rectification (Postscript for English Readers) 2 , , Bibliography 22' Index 23' Translator's Note The publishers and I are grateful to all the publishers who have allowed the use of quotations from their publications. For this purpose I have used the standard English editions when these are available. Where no English translation is available or when the author's use of a quotation requires it, I have translated directly from the French or adapted the available English translation. For help with the translation, especially some difficult philo­ sophical passages,I am grateful to Dr Grahame Lock;and to Mr J ean­ Jacques Lecercle, especially for help with technical linguistic terms. I would also like to thank Mme Michele Guenoun. HARBANS NAGPAL Paris, '979 vu Little Prefatory Note The term semantics is often found today in the company of those of semiotics and semiology; in this connection, I should like to review a few of the characteristic aspects of these different disciplines. Semwlics, or the science of signs, introduced by John Locke in the context of an empiricist philosophy of language, was developed in the United States by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839- 1914), wi th his distinctions between the iconic, the indexical and the symbolic. [n their recent Dictionnaire encydopidique des sciences du langage (1972), from which I have taken the gist of this note, Oswald Ducrol and Tzvetan Todorov quote the following admission of Peirce himself as to the universal goals of semiotics as he underst<X><l it: '] t has never been in my power to study anything, - mathematics, ethics, metaphysics, gravitation, thermodynamics, optics, chem­ istry, comparative anatomy, astronomy, psychology, phonetics, economics, the history of science, whist, men and women, wine, metrology - except as astudyof semeiotic' (Peirce 1953, p. 3'2).This typically American empirical universality can paradoxically be linked however with Ernst Cassirer's 'philosophy of symbolic forms', in which the symbolic, the distinguishing feature of man as opposed to animals, constitutes the common spring of myth, religion, art and science, each of which is a 'language'. Next, the logician Charles Morris, basing himself on the notion of ideal language (Frege, Russell, Carnap), developed the relationship between logic and semiotics, notably by proposing a distinction between syntax (the relations between signs and other signs), semantics (the relation between signs and what they designate) and pragmatics (the relation between signs and their users). Note finally that, beginning in the 1960s, investigators in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have started to develop research in semiotics. For this, they have drawn especially on the theory of dual signalling systems, and on cybernetics and information theory. Completely independently, the term semiology was introduced by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure to define the object of linguistics VIII Little Prefatory Note IX inside a much larger field; he wrote: Langue is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore com­ parable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, sym­ bolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etc. But it is the most important of all these systems. A scienu that studies tht life of signs within socitty is conceivable; it would be part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology (Saussure 1974, p. 123)' Asis well known, with the help of the celebrated distinction between signifier and signified and other linguistic oppositions such as paradigm and syntagm, a series of semiological studies of the systems of fashion, advertising, road signs, kinship relations, myths, etc., have been developed under the aegis of this statement of Saussure's. Whether or not semiotics and semiology designate one and the same discipline - a point that is still in dispute - it remains the case that they are both concerned with all signs, whether they be by nature linguistic or extra-linguistic (images, sounds, etc.). By contrast, semantics, most generally definedas concerning meaning or sense,1 seems to refer especially to linguistics and logic; the word semantics emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, but what it designates concerns both very ancient preoccupations of philos­ ophers and grammarians, and recent linguistic research; there was a period (roughly the first half of the twentieth century) when linguists were reluctant to recognise semantics as 'a part of linguistics'. Since the advent of Chomskyism, semantics (,interpretative' or 'generative') has been at the centre of linguistic controversy, especially in respect to its relationship with syntax (is the deep structure exclusively syntactic, or is it both syntactic and semantic?). These controversies depend, as we shall see, on philosophical questions which themselves involve the problem of universality and ideal language. Finally, some authors (such as Adam Schaff) identify semantics with semiology, a clear sign of the theoretical proximity of the three disciplines. I. The straightforward tTarulation of'snu' into English is 'meaning'. However, the French word is also used in contexts where the normal English word would be 'sense' or, in the negative form 'non-snu', 'nonserue'. Moreover, in their trarulatioru of the writings of Frege, Black and Geach adopted 'sense' for Frese's 'SiM' in the opposition SiM/Btdndung (serue/reference), which French tTarulations of Frese render snu/dIno14tio",. In this trarulation 'sms' has mostly been trarulated by 'meaning'; sometimes, when the context seemed to demand it or a Frese translation was concemed, as 'sense', and occasionally, at the risk of a certain clunuiness, as here with both English words [Translator's Note). Acknowledgements The author and publishers wish to thank the following who have kindly given permission for the use of copyright material: George Allen & Unwin Ltd and Basic Books Inc., for the extract from 'Interpretation of Dreams' in Til. Standard Edition of til. Works if Sigmund Freud, vols IV and v; Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd, for the extracts from Translations from til. Philosophical Writings ifColliob Frege (ed. Peter T. Geach and Max Black), and from Logical Investigations by Gottlob Frege, translated by PeterT. Geach and R. H. Sloothoff; Editions Gallimard, Paris, for the extract from Uibni<:: Critique de Descarus by Yvon Belaval (1960); Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, for the extract from Wilhelm von Humbo/Is Werke, vol. v (1g68); Harper & Row Publishers Inc., for the extract from Til. Hiswry if Rationalist Thought by N. Chomsky (1g66); Editions Klincksieck, Paris, for the extracts from LtMauvais outil by Paul Henry (1977); Lawrence and Wishart Ltd, for the extracts from Marx and Engels: Selected Works in 3 Volumes, vol. III, and Collected Works ofLenin, vol. XIV; Editions Fran.;ois Maspero, Paris, for the extracts from Une Crist et son enjou by Dominique Lecourt (1973); Philosophic tI Philosophic sponllJnie us savants by Louis Aithusser (1g67); Cahins Marxisus-Leninisus (1966) and Cinq ituus du materialisme hiswrique by Etienne Balibar (1972); Les Editions de Minuit, Paris, for the extract from L'Blabli by Robert Linhart (1978); New Left Books, for the extracts from Reading CapillJI by Louis Althusser and Etienne Balibar, translated by B. Brewster (1g65); Lenin and Philosophy and otlur Essays (1g64) and Politics and History: Montesquitu, Rousstau, Hegel and Mar% by Louis Althusser, translated B. Brewster (1g68), and Essays in Self Criticism by Louis Althusser, translated by Grahame Lock (1972); Open Court Publishing Co., for the extract from Til. Sciente of Mechanics by Ernest Mach, translated by T. J. McCormack (1960); Pergamon Press Ltd, for the extract from Introduetion w Semantics by A. Schaff (1g62); Presses Universitaires dr. France, for the extract from l'Empirisme Logique by Louis Vax (1970); Routledge & Kegan Paul x Acknowledgements Xl Ltd and Humanities Press Inc., for the extracts from Logical Investigationsby E. Husserl, translated by J. N. Findlay, and with W.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Structuralism 1. the Nature of Meaning Or Understanding
    Structuralism 1. The nature of meaning or understanding. A. The role of structure as the system of relationships Something can only be understood (i.e., a meaning can be constructed) within a certain system of relationships (or structure). For example, a word which is a linguistic sign (something that stands for something else) can only be understood within a certain conventional system of signs, which is language, and not by itself (cf. the word / sound and “shark” in English and Arabic). A particular relationship within a شرق combination society (e.g., between a male offspring and his maternal uncle) can only be understood in the context of the whole system of kinship (e.g., matrilineal or patrilineal). Structuralism holds that, according to the human way of understanding things, particular elements have no absolute meaning or value: their meaning or value is relative to other elements. Everything makes sense only in relation to something else. An element cannot be perceived by itself. In order to understand a particular element we need to study the whole system of relationships or structure (this approach is also exactly the same as Malinowski’s: one cannot understand particular elements of culture out of the context of that culture). A particular element can only be studied as part of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be studied is not particular elements or objects but relationships within a system. Our human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships, which make up permanent structures of the human mind. B. The role of oppositions / pairs of binary oppositions Structuralism holds that understanding can only happen if clearly defined or “significant” (= essential) differences are present which are called oppositions (or binary oppositions since they come in pairs).
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Dualism in Environmental Discourse: an Analysis of Documentary Films That Address the Agriculture Issue Matrizes, Vol
    Matrizes ISSN: 1982-2073 ISSN: 1982-8160 [email protected] Universidade de São Paulo Brasil Muniz de Medeiros, Priscila; de Azevedo Mello Gomes, Isaltina Maria The role of dualism in environmental discourse: an analysis of documentary films that address the agriculture issue Matrizes, vol. 12, no. 3, 2018, pp. 277-296 Universidade de São Paulo Brasil DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v12i3p277-296 Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=143065736014 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 277 The role of dualism in environmental discourse: an analysis of documentary films that address the agriculture issue O papel do dualismo no discurso ambiental: uma análise a partir de filmes documentários sobre a questão agrícola PRISCILA MUNIZ DE MEDEIROSa Universidade Federal de Alagoas. Maceió – AL, Brazil ISALTINA MARIA DE AZEVEDO MELLO GOMESb Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Graduate Program in Communication. Recife – PE, Brazil ABSTRACT Focusing on the concept of discursive formation, in this study we tested the hypothesis a Assistant professor of Universidade Federal de that dualism would play a central role within what we called an anti-industrial agriculture Alagoas (Ufal). Orcid: https:// discursive formation. Therefore, we analyzed the presence of several binary schemes orcid.org/0000-0003-3173-8596. E-mail: [email protected] shared by the six documentary films that composed the corpus of the study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax–Semantics Interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’S Interpretation of the Hjelmslevian Model of Stratification
    PREPRINT NOTICE This is a PREPRINT of an article to be published in Journal of Pragmatics. Copyright © Elsevier 2011. For citation, please consult the published version. ↓ P U B L I S H E D Full reference: VERSION Taverniers, Miriam (2011) The syntax–semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4): 1100–1126. DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.003 F U R T H E R http://users.UGent.be/~mtaverni/ INFORMATION & C ONTACT [email protected] The syntax–semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification Miriam Taverniers (Ghent University) English Department Ghent University Rozier 44 9000 Gent Belgium [email protected] Phone: + 32 9 264 3789 Fax: + 32 9 264 4179 PREPRINT. Taverniers, Miriam (2011) The syntax–semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4): 1100–1126. Abstract The aim of this article is to explore how exactly the idea of distinguishing different coding levels in language has been theorized in different stages of Hallidayan systemic functional grammar (SFG), focusing on its view of the syntax–semantics interface. This is done by juxtaposing the levels of the Hallidayan model and the various components of Hjelmslev’s model of stratification, on the basis of Halliday’s re-interpretation of Hjelmslev’s theory at various stages in the development of SFG. In this exploration, specific attention is paid to two important theoretical aspects of the design of Hjelmslev’s and Halliday’s models: (1) the different dimensions along which semiotic distinctions are made in the two models, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Hjelmslev's Glossematics and Linguistic Realism
    Workshop The Foundations of Linguistics – Languages as Abstract Objects 26. – 27. June 2015, Braunschweig University of Technology Predecessors: Hjelmslev’s Glossematics and Linguistic Realism Ellen Fricke & Martin Siefkes Chemnitz University of Technology [email protected] www.ellenfricke.de [email protected] www.siefkes.de Overview 1. Louis Hjelmslev 2. Hjelmslev‘s demands on a theory of language 3. Some important distinctions of glossematics 4. Hjelmslev and multimodal grammar Louis Hjelmslev Louis Hjelmslev (1899 – 1965) • Danish linguist • Co-founder of the Copenhagen school • Other members were: Viggo Brøndal (1887 – 1942), Hans Jørgen Uldall (1907 – 1957) • One of the most important theoreticians of structuralism Louis Hjelmslev (1899 – 1965) • Together with Uldall, he developed a theory of language called “glossematics” • An outline of Glossematics (1936) • Prolegomena to a theory of language (1963; Orig: Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse, 1943) • Further development of Saussure’s analysis, explicating Saussure’s notions • Glosseme = smallest units of language: e.g. phonological and semantic features • not identical with Leonard Bloomfield’s “glossemes”, which corresponds to morphemes Hjelmslev’s demands on a theory of language Hjelmslev‘s basic assumptions 1) What makes something a language? 2) When is a language identical with itself in various manifestations? • In Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Hjelmslev criticised earlier schools of linguistics that concentrated on language change (such as the Young Grammarians) • Hjelmslev argues against the “humanist tradition”, which claims that no general regularities can be found • Anti-descriptivist stance Demands on a linguistic theory • For every process, linguists should look for an underlying system; for fluctuations, they should search for underlying constancy (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Problems in Child Language Research the Naive
    Philosophical Problems in Child Language Research The Naive Realism of Traditional Semantics John Lyons, Oxford linguist, writes in his book (1995) on linguistic semantics: “in my view, it is impossible to evaluate even the most down-to-earth and apparently unphilosophical works in descriptive semantics unless one has some notion of the general philosophical framework within which they are written. This holds true regardless of whether the authors themselves are aware of the philosophical origins or implications of their working principles” (p. 88). One can only agree with Lyons’ position. And one can only admire his honesty when, later, he acknowledges: “throughout this book I have adopted the viewpoint of naive realism, according to which the ontological structure of the world is objectively independent both of perception and cognition and also of language. As we have dealt with particular topics, this view has been gradually elaborated (and to some degree modified); and a more technical metalanguage has been developed in order to formulate with greater precision than is possible in the everyday metalanguage the relations of reference and denotation that hold between language and the world. According to the viewpoint adopted here, the world contains a number of first-order entities (with first-order properties) which fall into certain ontological categories (or natural kinds); it also contains aggregates of stuff or matter(with first-order properties), portions of which can be individuated, quantified, enumerated—and thus treated linguistically as entities—by using the lexical and grammatical resources of particular natural languages. All natural languages, it may be assumed, provide their users with the means of referring to first-order entities and expressing propositions which describe them in terms of their (first-order) properties, actual or ascribed, essential or contingent: such languages have the expressive power of first-order formal languages” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • And a Remote Literature Literat
    Maria Oikonomou OnOnOn thethethe Clinical Picture ofofof NostalgiaNostalgia———— aaandandndnd aaa Remote Literature Nowhere does one find better somatization than among foreigners... (Julia Kristeva: Strangers to Ourselves ) When speaking of homesickness, Odysseus comes to mind as the first great nostalgist, who is fated to force his return against insurmountable resistance – not only against all the external adversities, but also against inner deviations and the ebbing of all motivation. Later on, in Tomis on the Black Sea, Ovid finds plaintive words for his longing for Rome, for his desiderium patriae . In his epistles Cicero laments the loss of his homeland, while Dante’s Divine Comedy speaks of the hour “that turns back desire in the sailors, and softens their hearts.”1 For the ancient and pre-modern world, homesickness – a longing for that which is lost and a profound desire to ease this deficiency – was at base a spiritual orientation, and only the use of metaphors could make this emotional state palpable. Sometimes, metaphors pertaining to the body seem to presage the path of homesickness through the history of the discourse. While Odysseus’ homesickness is soothed by the smoke of Ithaca, transient and incorporeal, for Dante it is the heart of the sailor, which seems to transfer homesickness not only into the material, but even the somatic realm. In that sense it is no longer a vague yearning, not scattered signs in the heavens, but an organ whose tissues and pulse are inscribed with emotion. This shift of a previously disembodied feeling of longing, which now enters the subject and its anatomy, presages the reconceptualizations of homesickness during the early modern differentiation of discourses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Twilight of Structuralism in Linguistics?*
    Ewa Jędrzejko Univesity of Silesia in Katowice nr 3, 2016 The Twilight of Structuralism in Linguistics?* Key words: structuralism, linguistics, methodological principles, evolution of studies on language I would like to start with some general remarks in order to avoid misunderstandings due to the title of this paper. “The question that our title / has cast in deathless bronze”1 is just a mere trigger, and a signal of reference to animated discussions held in many disci- plines of modern liberal arts: philosophy, literary studies, social sciences, aesthetics, cultural studies (just to mention areas closest to linguistics), concerning their current methodologi- cal state and future perspectives regarding theoretical research. What I mean by that is, among others, the dispute around deconstructionism being in opposition to neo-positivistic stance, as well as some views on the current situation in art expressed in the volume called Zmierzch estetyki – rzekomy czy autentyczny? [The twilight of aesthetics – alleged or true?] (Morawski, 1987),2 or problems signalled by the literary scholars in the tellingly entitled Po strukturalizmie [After structuralism] (Nycz, 1992).3 The statements included in this article are for me one out of many voices in the discus- sion on the changes observed in linguistics in the context of questions about the future of structuralism. Since in a way the situation in contemporary linguistics (including Polish linguistics) is similar. The shift in the scope of interest of linguistics and the way it is presented may
    [Show full text]
  • What Literature Knows: Forays Into Literary Knowledge Production
    Antje Kley What Literature Knows: An Introduction The nexus of literature and knowledge is an underdetermined and capacious one� Both popular and culturally distinguished forms of literary writing ex- hibit a whole range of relations to knowledge landscapes, be they scientific, political, or administrative� Karl Richter, Jörg Schonert, and Michael Titz- mann have distinguished four general types of relation between literature and knowledge: first, literature may integrate bodies of knowledge in order to confirm, modify, or criticize them� Second, literature may entertain fields of knowledge that scientific discourses have not taken up (yet)� Third, literature may produce knowledge that is taken up and authorized later by academic discourses (e�g� psychoanalysis)� And fourth, specialized bodies of knowledge might remain difficult to mediate or even inaccessible for literary writing (30)� In all four types of relation literature functions as an ‘interdiscourse’ (Link, “Interdiscourse”) which may participate in and selectively connect other more specialized discursive formations�1 The contributions to this volume address all four types of interconnection, and they all insist that literature’s interdiscursive relation with specific areas of knowledge is fundamentally twofold, involving both the level of content and the level of discursive form, to selectively tap bodies of knowledge for representation and to produce knowledge in its own right� The essays collected here trace what the Münster research training group on “Literary Form: History
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Pragmatics
    Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, 2nd edn. Drafted Apr 20, 2011; revised Mar 4, 2014 7. Pragmatics Christopher Potts Department of Linguistics, Stanford University Abstract This chapter reviews core empirical phenomena and technical concepts from linguistic pragmatics, including context dependence, common ground, indexicality, conversational implicature, presupposition, and speech acts. I seek to identify unifying themes among these concepts, provide a high-level guide to the primary literature, and relate the phenomena to issues in computational linguistics. Keywords context dependence, common ground, indexicality, conversational implica- ture, presupposition, speech acts 7.1 Introduction The linguistic objects that speakers use in their utterances vastly underdetermine the contributions that those utterances make to discourse. To borrow an analogy from Levinson(2000: 4), “an utterance is not [... ] a veridical model or ‘snapshot’ of the scene it describes”. Rather, the encoded content merely sketches what speakers intend and hearers perceive. The fundamental questions of pragmatics concern how semantic content, contextual information, and general communicative pressures interact to guide discourse participants in filling in these sketches: (i) How do language users represent the context of utterance, and which aspects of the context are central to communication? (ii) We often “mean more than we say”. What principles guide this pragmatic enrichment, and how do semantic values (conventional aspects of meaning) enable and constrain
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Glossematics Critical Survey of Its Fundamental Concepts a Study of Glossema Tics Critical Survey of Its Fundamental Concepts
    A STUDY OF GLOSSEMATICS CRITICAL SURVEY OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS A STUDY OF GLOSSEMA TICS CRITICAL SURVEY OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS BY B. SIERTSEMA PH. D. (AMSTERDAM) SECOND EDITION • THE HAGUE MARTIN US NI]HOFF 1965 ISBN 978-94-011-8161-7 ISBN 978-94-011-8796-1 (eBook) DOl 10.1007/978-94-011-8796-1 COPYright .1965 by Maytinus Nijhoff. The Hague. Holland. All rights yeseYVed. including the Yight to tyanslate OY to yepyodflce this book OY payts thereof in any foym_ PREFACE This book owes its .existence to the encouragement and help of many others. In the first place I mention Prof. Dr. A.]. B. N. Reichling, who was my supervisor at Amsterdam University and who from the beginning helped me on, through his most stimulating teaching and above all through his encouragement, his friendly advice and his sincere interest. The readiness with which he was always prepared to spend hours and hours of his valuable time on the discussion of the many problems with which the study of Glossematics confronts one, has often inspired me with wonder and deep gratitude. It is hardly possible to do justice in a preface to a supervisor to whom one owes so much, and from whose keen insight one has learned so much. One can only feel profoundly thankful for having been brought up in the linguistic atmosphere which Prof. Reichling creates about him, an atmosphere characterized by a persistent desire for an empirical approach to the facts of language, which desire he knows how to instill into his pupils.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case of Parrhesia: Courage in Discourse and Its Effects
    Original Article A CASE OF PARRHESIA: COURAGE IN DISCOURSE AND ITS EFFECTS Thiago Barbosa SOARES* ▪ ABSTRACT: This article aims to analyze the meanings of parrhesia and its effects in a statement by a Brazilian federal representative, that breaks with hegemonic discourse. More precisely, we describe and interpret how the production and emergence of parrhesia functions to configure meanings in a statement constituted and developed within the vote regarding the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff’s mandate in 2016, delivered by Jean Wyllys. In this way, considering the postulate of Discourse Analysis, developed by Pêcheux, in which subject and meaning are constructed simultaneously in the historical movement, we hold that parrhesia, as Foucault observes it in his final works, produces, simultaneously, certain meanings and subjects circulating in the social space. Given this conceptual framework, we employ the theoretical and methodological tools of Discourse Analysis to investigate how truth-telling is constructed and what its effects are on the treadmill of resistance against discursive hegemony. ▪ KEYWORDS: discourse analysis; parrhesia; Jean Wyllys. Introduction A ‘discourse’ is not an infrastructure; nor is it another word for ‘ideology’. In fact, it is, rather, the opposite, despite what is often claimed either in writing or by word of mouth. (VEYNE, 2008, p.28) Paul Veyne is right in saying what discourse is not, in order to dispel certain existing interpretations about discourse. Likewise, eschewing generic readings of discourse is desirable and even necessary in the scope of our object of investigation, since the exercise of parrhesia - which “implies speech equality, the right to speak”, that is, isegory -, as understood by Michel Foucault, it is more than truth-telling, it is an ethical act whose implication is the conjuration of the effects of the discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3 Looking at Data-2
    UNIT 3 LOOKING AT DATA-2 Structure Objectives Formal Linguistics - An Introduction Generative Grammar 3.2.1 Principal Goals Generativists and Structuralists 3.3.1 Generativists and Bloomfieldians Tranformational Generative Grammar Let Us Sum Up Key Words Questions Suggested Readings 3.0 OBJECTIVES , In this unit, we will discuss o the Generative framework of grammar o its differences with the Structuralists We will also briefly talk about Transformational Generative Grammar. Some of these ideas may appear difficult but they will be clear to you as you read the course. Don't get discouraged if some concepts appear difficult and complex. They will be clarified as we proceed along. 3.1 FORMAL LINGLTISTICS - AN INTRODUCTION In the early 1950fs,signs of restiveness began to disturb the calm of structuralism, and by the end of the decahe new ideas emerged in a big way. Chomsky, a student of Zellig Harris was concerned with discovering a general theory of grammatical structure. He believed that an adequate grammar should provide a basis for explaining how sentences are used and understood. He reproaches the Bloonlfieldeans for "their satisfaction with description [and] their refusal to explain" ( 198 1:38). According to him, as other 'developing sciences, linguistics should also endeavour to establish a more ambitious goal than mere description and classification. Linguists should aim at developing methods not just for the description of language but also for understanding the nature of language. And this was possible only if one takes recourse to intuition of native speakers. Intuition had, however, remained a source of discomfiture for Bloomfield.
    [Show full text]