DOCSLIB.ORG

Hjelmslev in the History of Linguistic Ideas: an Interview with Christian Puech and Sémir Badir

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hjelmslev in the History of Linguistic Ideas: an Interview with Christian Puech and Sémir Badir ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ دوﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ - ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ د 11 ، ش 1 (ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ 55 )، ﻓﺮوردﻳﻦ و اردﻳﺒﻬﺸﺖ 1399 ، ﺻﺺ 359 - 386 ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﮔﺮو ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ در ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ و ﺳﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻛﻨﻨﺪه و ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ: ﻣﺤﻤﺪاﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﻛﺮي* داﻧﺸﺠﻮي دﻛﺘﺮي، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ ﺳﻮرﺑﻦ ﻧﻮول ( Paris3). ﻋﻀﻮ ﮔﺮوه ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ( HTL )، ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ . درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: /23 /12 97 ﭘﺬﻳﺮش: /18 /04 98 98 ﭼﻜﻴﺪه ﻟﻮﻳﻲ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﭼﻬﺮه اي ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ در ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ اﺳﺖ. ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﻣﻘﺎم ﻳﻚ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎس ﺑﺎ آﺛﺎر و ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ اش (ﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻً ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮان « ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ » از آن ﻳﺎد ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮد) ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﭼﺸﻢ ﮔﻴ ﺮي ﺑﻪ ﺿﺮورت اﻳﺠﺎد ﻳﻚ « ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ زﺑﺎﻧﻲ » ﭘﺎﺳﺦ داده اﺳﺖ. ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺣﺎل، ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻫﺎي او ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮاﺳﻮي ﻣﺮزﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ راﻳﺞ ﮔﺴﺘﺮده ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ: وي ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ زﺑﺎن، ﻳﻚ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ درون ﻣﺎﻧﺪﮔﺎر را اﺑﺪاع ﻛﺮد ﻛﻪ از ﻃﺮﻓﻲ، ﻳﻚ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺻﻮري ﻛﻞ ﮔﺮا و ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ را ﻧﻮﻳﺪ ﻣﻲ داد و از ﻃﺮف دﻳﮕﺮ، ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮاﻧﺴﺖ داﻧﺶ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ اي را ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ اي ﺑﺪﻳﻞ در ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ دﻳﮕﺮ دﻳﺪﮔﺎه ﻫﺎي ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ در اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻣﺎ ﺑﮕﺬارد. در زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، دﻛﺘﺮﻳﻦ او ﻧﺘﻮاﻧﺴﺖ وراي ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﻛﭙﻨﻬﺎگ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ دﺳﺖ ﻳﺎﺑﺪ و ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ وي را ﺑﻪ دﻟﻴﻞ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪه ﺑﻮدن و ﺷﻜﻞ و ﺷﻤﺎﻳﻞ ر ﻳﺎﺿﻲ وارش ﻧﭙﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ؛ اﻣﺎ در ﺑﻴﺮون از زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، اﻳﺪه ﻫﺎي او ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪي در ﺷﺎﺧﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪي ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮان « ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ » (ﺑﺎﻻﺧﺺ در ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻪ) ﭘﻴﮕﻴﺮي ﺷﺪ. ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ، ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎه ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ در ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ دارد: او ﺑﻨﻴﺎن ﮔﺬاري رﻫﺎﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮاﻧﻴﻢ اﻳﻦ Downloaded from lrr.modares.ac.ir at 19:00 IRST on Wednesday September 29th 2021 وﺿﻌﻴﺖ را ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ دﻫﻴﻢ؟ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ روﻳﻜﺮد ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﻛﺠﺎﺳﺖ؟ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮان ﺧﺼﻴﺼﻪ ﻫﺎي وﻳﮋة روﻳﻜﺮد او را در ﻗﻴﺎس ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ روﻳﻜﺮدﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻛﺮد؟ ﻣﻴﺮاث او ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟ اﻣﺮوز ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ ﻣﻴﺰان ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮان در دﻛﺘﺮﻳﻦ او ﻣﺸﺎرﻛﺖ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ؟ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻛﺎرﻫﺎ در زﻣﻴﻨﺔ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﭘﮋو ﻫﻲ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ؟ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻼش ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ ﺗﺎ در ﮔﻔﺖ وﮔﻮ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﺪﻳﺮ و ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ دﻫﻴﻢ. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ * ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪة ﻣﺴﺌﻮل ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ: E-mail: [email protected] ﻣﺤﻤﺪاﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﻛﺮي ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﮔﺮو ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ... واژه ﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻴﺪي: ﻳ ﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ، ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرﮔﺮا ﻳﻲ ،ﺳﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﺪﻳﺮ، ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ 1 . ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﺘﻦ ﭘﻴﺶ رو ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮔﻔﺖو ﮔﻮﻳﻲ دوﺳﺎﻋﺘﻪ در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﺣﺴﺎس و اﻟﺒﺘﻪ، ﻛ ﻢ اﻗﺒﺎل ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﻣﻲ ﭘﺮدازد. در اﻳﻦ ﮔﻔﺖ ﮔﻮ ﺗﻼش ﺑﺮ آن اﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮي ﭼﻨﺪﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪ از ﻛﻠﻴﺎت ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در اﻓﻖ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ دﺳﺖ داده ﺷﻮد. ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر دو اﻧﺪﻳﺸﻤﻨﺪ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺷﻮﻧﺪه ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﻜﻤﻞ ﻫﻢ را اﻳﻔﺎ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ: ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ1 از ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ داﻧﺎن زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و ﺳﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﺪﻳﺮ2 ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ و ﺷﺎرح ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ. ﭘﻮﺋﺶ اﺳﺘﺎد ﺑ ﺎزﻧﺸﺴﺘﺔ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺳﻮرﺑﻮن ﻧﻮول و رﺋﻴﺲ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﮔﺮوه ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ « ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ » ( HTL )، ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻌﺪد و ﮔﺴﺘﺮده اي درﺑﺎرة ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎ و اﻳﺪه ﻫﺎ در ﺑﺎب زﺑﺎن ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﻗﺮن ﻫﺎي ﻫﺠﺪﻫﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻴﺴﺘﻢ اﻧﺠﺎم داده اﺳﺖ. ﻧﺎم او در ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎ ن ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ اروﭘﺎ، ﺑﺎﻷ ﺧﺺ ﭘﺲ از ﻣ ﺮاوداﺗﺶ ﺑﺎ ژاك درﻳﺪا در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎر، ﻧﺎﻣﻲ آﺷﻨﺎﺳﺖ. در ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ آﺛﺎر او ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ اﺻﻠﻲ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه اﻧﺪ. در ﺳﻮي دﻳﮕﺮ، ﺑﺪﻳﺮ، اﺳﺘﺎد داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺳﻦ ﻟﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﺮوﻛﺴﻞ و رﺋﻴﺲ ﮔﺮوه ﻋﻠﻮم زﺑﺎﻧﻲ و رﺗﻮرﻳﻚ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻟﻴِﮋ اﺳﺖ. او ﻛﻪ در دو ﺣﻴﻄﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ و ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ زﺑﺎن ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻓﻌﺎل اﺳﺖ، در ﺷﺮح و ﺑﺎزﺧﻮاﻧﻲ آراء ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺑﺴﺰاﻳﻲ داﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. اﻳﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ در آورﻳﻞ 2018 در ﻣﺤﻞ ﮔﺮوه ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ « ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ » واﻗﻊ در داﻧﺸﮕﺎه دﻳﺪرو ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ ﺑﻪ زﺑﺎن ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻪ اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪ؛ اﻣﺎ ﻫﺪف از ﻫﻤﺎن ا ﺑﺘﺪا اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻣﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ زﺑﺎن ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و اراﺋﺔ آن در ﻓﻀﺎي اﻳﺮان ﺑﻮد. اﻣﻴﺪوارم ﻣﺎﺣﺼﻞ ﻛﺎر ﻣﻮرد ﺑﻬﺮة ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻣﻨﺪان ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد و ﺑﺘﻮاﻧﺪ ﮔﻮﺷﻪ اي از ﻛﻤﺒﻮد آﺷﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺳﺎﺣﺖ ﻣﻬﻢ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﮕﺎﻧﻲ را ﺟﺒﺮان ﻛﻨﺪ. Downloaded from lrr.modares.ac.ir at 19:00 IRST on Wednesday September 29th 2021 2 . ﻣﺘﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ - ﻣﺎ اﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﮔﺮد ﻫﻢ آﻣﺪه اﻳﻢ ﺗﺎ درﺑﺎرة ﭼﻬﺮه اي ﺷﺎﺧﺺ و ﺑﺴﻴﺎ ر ﻣﻬﻢ در ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎس داﻧﻤﺎرﻛﻲ، ﻟﻮﻳﻲ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ3 ، ﮔﻔﺖ وﮔﻮ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ و از ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ اﻣﺮوزي زﻳﺴﺖ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﺔ 1 Christian Puech 23 Sém ir Badir Louis Hjelmslev (1899- 1965) 360 ﺟﺴﺘﺎرﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ دورة 11 ، ﺷﻤﺎرة 1 (ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ 55 )، ﻓﺮوردﻳﻦ و اردﻳﺒﻬﺸﺖ 1399 او و ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ اش ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎم ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ4 ﺟﻮﻳﺎ ﺷﻮﻳﻢ. ﭘﻴﺶ از ﻫﺮﭼﻴﺰ، ﻗﺼﺪ دارم ﺑﺤﺚ را ﺑﺎ ارﺟﺎع ﺑﻪ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﺔ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻔﻲ ﺷﺮوع ﻛﻨﻢ. ﻫﻤﺎن ﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲ داﻧﻴﻢ، ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ از ﻣﻴﺎن زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن و ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎن ﻣﺤﻞ ارﺟﺎﻋﺶ ﻫﻤﭽﻮن وﻳﻮل5 ، اﺳﺘﺎﻳﻨﺘﻬﺎل6 ، ﺳﺎﭘﻴﺮ7 ، دﻻﻛﺮوا8 ، ﻫﻮﻣﺒﻮﻟﺖ9 ، ﻟﻮي ﺑﺮول 10 ، ﻳﺴﭙﺮﺳﻦ 11 و دﻳﮕﺮان، ﺣﺴﺎب ﻓﺮدﻳﻨﺎن دو ﺳﻮﺳﻮر 12 را ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﻃﻼﻳﻪ دار ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﻣﺴﻴﺮ اﻧﺪﻳﺸﮕﺎﻧﻲ ﺧﻮدش و ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﺑﻨﻴﺎن ﮔﺬار ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻮﻳﻦ زﺑﺎن ﺟﺪا ﻣ ﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ. ﺑﺎ وﺟﻮد اﻳﻦ ﺧﻮاﻧﺶ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ از ﻛﺘﺎب ﺳﻮﺳﻮر، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ دورة زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ 13 ، ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮي ﺑﺴﻴﺎر وﻳﮋه و ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪي ﺷﺨﺼﻲ ﺳﺎزي ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ. و از ﺳﻮي دﻳﮕﺮ، او ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ اﻣﺮ ﭘﺎ ﻣﻲ ﻓﺸﺎرد ﻛﻪ ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ را ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮوژة ﺳﻮﺳﻮري ﺧﻠﻂ ﻛﺮد و ﻳﻜﻲ اﻧﮕﺎﺷﺖ. ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎت ﻣﻲ ﺧﻮاﻫﻢ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ را اﺑﺘﺪا رو ﺑﻪ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ ﻣﻄﺮح ﻛﻨﻢ. ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺳﻬﻢ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﻣﻴﺮاث ﺳﻮﺳﻮري، ﭼﻪ از ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب دوره و ﭼﻪ از ﺣﻴﺚ وﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ آن، ﭼﻪ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ؟ ﭘﻮﺋﺶ: ﻫﻤﺎن ﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ اﺷﺎره ﻛﺮدﻳﺪ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺑﻪ واﻗﻊ ﻳﻜﻲ از ﻣﻴﺮاث داران ﻛﺘﺎب دورة زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ اﺳﺖ . در ﻣﻴﺎن ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﺗﺐ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ اي ﻛﻪ ﺣﻮل اﻳﻦ ﻛﺘﺎب از دﻫﺔ 1920 ﺗﺎ 1930 در اروﭘﺎ ﺷﻜﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ، ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﻲ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ داﺷﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮدش ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﺮاه ﺑﺮوﻧﺪال 14 ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻛﺮده ﺑﻮد؛ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪي ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎﺷﻴﻪ راﻧﺪه ﺷﺪ. در ﻗﺮن ﻧﻮزدﻫﻢ و ﺳﺎل ﻫﺎي ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻗﺮن ﺑﻴﺴﺘﻢ، آﻟﻤﺎن و ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻪ ﺑﻪﻃ ﻮر ﺑﺮاﺑﺮ ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ ﺑﺰرگ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﻣﻲ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ. در وﻫﻠﺔ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ، ﭘﺲ از ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖ ﻫﺎي « اﻧﺠﻤﻦ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ» 15 ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻤﺎن ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻮﺳﻮر در آن ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ و ﺗﺪرﻳﺲ ﻣﻲ ﻛﺮد، ﺳﻜﺎن زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ ﻫﺪاﻳﺖ ﺷﺪ. در وﻫﻠﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ، ﭘﺲ از 1916 ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﺎل اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻛﺘﺎب دوره ، ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻫﺎي ﺑﻪ اﺻﻄﻼح در ﺣﺎﺷﻴﻪ از ﭘﺎرﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰزداﻳﻲ ﻛﺮدﻧﺪ و ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﺪد در ﭘﺮاگ، ﻛﭙﻨﻬﺎگ و ﻏﻴﺮه ﺳﺮ Downloaded from lrr.modares.ac.ir at 19:00 IRST on Wednesday September 29th 2021 ﺑﺮآوردﻧﺪ. ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺑﻨﻴﺎن ﮔﺬار ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﻛﭙﻨﻬﺎگ 16 ﺑﻮد. اﻳﻦ ﺣﻠﻘﻪ در ﺳﺎل 1939 ﻣﺠﻠﺔ Acta Linguistica را راه اﻧﺪازي ﻛﺮد. ﻋﻨﻮان ﻓﺮﻋﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﻠﻪ « ﻧﺸﺮﻳﺔ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺳﺎﺧ ﺘﺎري 17 » ﺑﻮد. از ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺟﺎ ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮان درﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻛﻪ در ﻣﻴﺎن ﻣﻴﺮاث داران ﺳﻮﺳﻮر و ﻛﺘﺎب دورة زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ، ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﻳﺎ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﻛﭙﻨﻬﺎگ ﻣﻮﺗﻮر ﺑﺴﻴﺎر ﻧﻴﺮوﻣﻨﺪي ﺑﺮاي ﭘﻴﺸﺒﺮد آﻧﭽﻪ ﺑﻪ « ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرﮔﺮاﻳﻲ 18 زﺑﺎﻧﻲ » ﻣﺸﻬﻮر ﺷﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎر ﻣﻲ آﻣﺪ. اﻟﺒﺘﻪ، ﺧﻮد اﺻﻄﻼح « ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرﮔﺮاﻳﻲ » اوﻟﻴﻦ ﺑﺎر در ﺳﺎل 1928 ، 4 89765 GlossématiqueH. G. Wiwel 1413111210 W.C.E.H. DelacroixSapirSteinthal von Humboldt 18171615 V.CoursO.FerdinandL. Lévy-BruhlBrøndalJespersen de ling de uistiqueSaussure générale (1916) structuralismestructuralCercleSociété de linguistique Copenhague de Paris 361 ﻣﺤﻤﺪاﻣﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﻛﺮي ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﮔﺮو ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ... ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﻴﺶ از 10 ﺳﺎل ﭘﺲ از اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻛﺘﺎب دوره ، در ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ اﺟﻼس ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻠﻠﻲ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن در ﻻﻫﻪ ﻣﻄﺮح ﺷﺪ. ﭘﺲ ﻇﻬﻮر اﺻﻄﻼح ﻫﺎي « ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎري » «و ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرﮔﺮاﻳﻲ » ﺑﺎ ﻣﺎﻧﻴﻔﺴﺖ ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﻳﺎﻛﻮﺑﺴﻮن 19 ، ﺗﺮوﺑﺘﺴﻜﻮي 20 ، ﻛﺎرﭼﻮﺳﻜﻲ 21 ، ﺑﻠﻲ 22 و ﺳﺸﻴﻪ 23 در اﻳﻦ اﺟﻼس ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺷﺪ؛ اﻣﺎ « ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ» ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻧﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺑﻪ دﻛﺘﺮﻳﻦ زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺧﻮد ﻣﻲ دﻫﺪ، در ﭘﻴﺸﺒﺮد، ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ و رادﻳﻜﺎﻟﻴﺰه ﻛﺮدن روﻳﻜﺮد ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎرﮔﺮا در دﻫﺔ 1930 ﻧﻘﺶ ﻋﻤﺪه اي داﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. ﻧﻜﺘﺔ دﻳﮕﺮي ﻛﻪ اﺷﺎره ﺑﻪ آن ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺿﺮوري ﻣﻲ آﻳﺪ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ در ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ [زﺑﺎن ﻫﺎ] ﺑﺴﻴﺎر زﺑﺮدﺳﺖ ﺑﻮد. او ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻗ ﻄﻊ در زﻣﺮة روﺷﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ و ﺳﻮﺳﻮري ﺗﺮﻳﻦ اﻓﺮادي ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺮاث دﺳﺘﻮر زﺑﺎن ﺗﺎرﻳﺨﻲ ـ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ ﻗﺮن ﻧﻮزدﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ آن ﻫﺎ رﺳﻴﺪه ﺑﻮد. ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﺸﺨﺺ در ﻗﺒﺎل ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺑﺎزﺳﺎزي زﺑﺎن ﻫﻨﺪواروﭘﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻲ روﺷﻨﮕﺮ و ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪي ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ [ﻳﺎ ﺻﻮرت ﮔﺮاﻳﺎﻧﻪ] اﺗﺨﺎذ ﻛﺮد ( اﻟﺒﺘﻪ، ﻧﻴﺎزي ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﺑ ﮕﻮﻳﻢ « ﺗﺎﺣﺪي» ؛ زﻳﺮا ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ، ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎي ﻣﺪﻧﻈﺮ ﺧﻮدش از « ﺻﻮرت» 24 ، ﻳﻚ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻤﺎم ﻋﻴﺎر اﺳﺖ). ﻃﺒﻖ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ، زﺑﺎن ﻫﻨﺪواروﭘﺎﻳﻲ را ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﺑﺔ زﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ واﻗﻌﺎً وﺟﻮد داﺷﺘﻪ و ﺧﺼﻴﺼﻪ ﻧﮕﺎر ﻣﻠﺘﻲ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ، در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ اﻳﻦ زﺑﺎن ﻳﻚ « ﻣﺼﻨﻮع » ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﭘﮋوﻫ ﺸﻲ اﺳﺖ، ﺑﺮ اﺳﺘﻘﺮا و اﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎج ﺑﻨﺎ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ و ﺗﻤﺎم ارزﺷﺶ را وام دار ﻫﻤﻴﻦ اﺳﺖ. در واﻗﻊ، اﻳﻦ روﻳﻜﺮد اﺳﺎﺳﺎً ﻧﮕﺎه ﺳﻮﺳﻮر را از ﻧﻮ ﭘﻴﮕﻴﺮي ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ،ﺑﻪ وﻳﮋه ﻧﮕﺎه ﺳﻮﺳﻮر در رﺳﺎﻟﻪ اي در ﺑﺎب ﻧﻈﺎم واﻛﻪ اي زﺑﺎن ﻫﺎي ﻫﻨﺪواروﭘﺎﻳﻲ 25 . از اﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ ﺗﻔﺎوت ﭼﻨﺪاﻧﻲ ﺑﺎ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻫﻢ ﻋﺼﺮ اﻧﺶ ﻧﺪارد. ﻣﻨﻈﻮر از ﻫﻢ ﻋﺼﺮان زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ در ﺣﻠﻘﻪ ﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲِ ﺑﻴﻦ دو ﺟﻨﮓ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖ ﻣﻲ ﻛﺮدﻧﺪ: ﭘﺮاگ، ﻛﭙﻨﻬﺎگ و ﺑﺎ ﮔﺴﺘﺮة ﻛﻤﺘﺮي ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮرك و ژﻧﻮ. ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ اوﺻﺎف ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮان ﺑﻴﺎن ﻛﺮد ﻛﻪ اﺻﺎﻟﺖ ﻳﻠﻤﺰﻟﻒ و ﻛﺎرزار ﮔﻠﻮﺳﻢ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ اش در ﺷﻴﻮة ﻳﮕﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻴﺮاث داري اش از ﺳﻮﺳﻮر اﺳﺖ: ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮي رادﻳﻜﺎل از دورة زﺑﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ، ﺑﺎ روﻳﻜﺮدي ﻧﻘﺎداﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻴﻮه اي ﻛﻪ ﻣﻮاﺿﻊ ﺳﻮﺳﻮر را ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎي ﭘﺲ زدن « ﺗﻌﻤﻴﻖ» 26 ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ. در ﻣﻜﺘﺐ ﭘﺮاگ درﺳﺖ ﻋﻜﺲ اﻳﻦ روﻳﻜﺮد ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﻮد. ﭘﺮاﮔﻲ ﻫﺎ، Downloaded from lrr.modares.ac.ir at 19:00 IRST on Wednesday September 29th 2021 ﺑﻪ ﺧﺼﻮص ﻳﺎﻛﻮﺑﺴﻮن و ﺗﺮوﺑﺘﺴﻜﻮي، ﺧﻴﻠﻲ زود ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺪي دﻳﮕﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ از دوره ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﻞ ﺷ ﺪﻧﺪ. ﻳﺎﻛﻮﺑﺴﻮن در ﺗﻤﺎم دوران ﻛﺎري اش ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻣﺪاوم در ﺣﺎل دﻳﺎﻟﻮگ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻮﺳﻮر و ﻛﺘﺎب دوره اﺳﺖ و ﻗﺪم ﺑﻪ ﻗﺪم درﺑﺎرة ﺗﻤﺎم آﻧﭽﻪ در ﻛﺘﺎب دوره ﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮد و ﺑﺤﺚ روز اﺳﺖ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ: اﺧﺘﻴﺎري ﺑﻮدن ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ 27 ، ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ درزﻣﺎﻧﻲ 28 / ﻫﻢ زﻣﺎﻧﻲ 29 و ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻻﻧﮓ 30 / ﭘﺎرول 31 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Article-755-623839.Pdf
    دوﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ - ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻲ 9د ، ش 1 (ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ 43 )، ﻓﺮوردﻳﻦ و اردﻳﺒﻬﺸﺖ 1397 ، ﺻﺺ 81 - 111 ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻛﺎرﻛﺮد ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻃﻨﺰ در ﺑﺎب اول ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎن ﺳﻌﺪي؛ روﻳﻜﺮد ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﻬﺮﻣﺎن ﺷﻴﺮي1 ، ﻧﺠﻤﻪ ﻧﻈﺮي2 ، ﻧﻮﺷﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﺮاﻣﻲ ﭘﻮر3* 1 . اﺳﺘﺎد ﮔﺮوه زﺑﺎن و ادﺑﻴﺎت ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺑﻮﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ، ﻫﻤﺪان، اﻳﺮان 2 . اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوه زﺑﺎن و ادﺑﻴﺎت ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺑﻮﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ، ﻫﻤﺪان، اﻳﺮان 3 . داﻧﺸﺠﻮي دﻛﺘﺮي زﺑﺎن و ادﺑﻴﺎت ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺑﻮﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ، ﻫﻤﺪان، اﻳﺮان درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: /4/24 96 ﭘﺬﻳﺮش: /8/6 96 96 ﭼﻜﻴﺪه ﻫﺪف اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﭘﻴﺎده ﺳﺎزي روش ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﺮاي دﺳﺘ ﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ اﻟﮕﻮ ﻳﺎ اﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎي ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳ ﻲ ﻛﻨﺸﻲ و ﺗﻨﺸﻲ و ﻧﺸﺎن دادنِ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺟﺮﻳﺎن زﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي ﻣﺬﻛﻮر در ﺑﺴﺘﺮ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎن ﻃﻨﺰ ﺑﺎب اول ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎن ﺳﻌﺪي اﺳﺖ واز اﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ، ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻛﻮﺷﺶ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎر ﻣﻲ آﻳﺪ. ﻣﻘﺼﻮد از ﻃﻨﺰ، ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻳﺒﻪ آﻣﻴﺰِ اﻧﺘﻘﺎدي اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑ ﺎ ﻫﺪف اﺻﻼح اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ و ﺑﻪ ﻛﻤﻚ ﺟﺮﻳﺎن زﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ در ز ﺑﺎن ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻴﺮد و ﺑﺎ ﻫﺰل و ﻫﺠﻮ ﻓﺮق دارد. روش ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ در ﭘﻲ ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎن ﺑﺮاي ﭘﻲ ﺑﺮدن ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ و درﻳﺎﻓﺖ آن اﺳﺖ. ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎس ﺑﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ اي ﻣﻌﻨﺎدار روﺑﻪ روﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ در ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪ ﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ و ﻧﻮع ارﺗﺒﺎط آن ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ را در ﻧﻈ ﺮ ﻣﻲ ﮔﻴﺮد . ﺳﭙﺲ ، ﺑﻪ ﺟﺴﺖ وﺟﻮي ﺻﻮرت ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪ ﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ دارﻧﺪ، ﻣﻲ ﭘﺮدازد ﺗﺎ اﺛﺒﺎت آن ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻴﺴﺮ ﺷﻮد. ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ در ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎن ﻃﻨﺰ ﻧﻈﺎم ﻛﻨﺸﻲ را ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﺸﻲ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ و ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﻗﺮاري ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ اﺑﻌﺎد ﻓﺸﺎره اي (ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻲ، دروﻧﻲ) و ﮔﺴﺘﺮه اي (ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ، ﺑﻴﺮوﻧﻲ) ﻓﻀﺎﻳﻲ ﺳﻴﺎل را ﻣﻲ آﻓﺮﻳﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺪﻳﻊ را ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻲ ﺳﺎزد.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Sanders Peirce - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 9/2/10 4:55 PM
    Charles Sanders Peirce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 9/2/10 4:55 PM Charles Sanders Peirce From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced /ˈpɜrs/ purse[1]) Charles Sanders Peirce (September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) was an American philosopher, logician, mathematician, and scientist, born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peirce was educated as a chemist and employed as a scientist for 30 years. It is largely his contributions to logic, mathematics, philosophy, and semiotics (and his founding of pragmatism) that are appreciated today. In 1934, the philosopher Paul Weiss called Peirce "the most original and versatile of American philosophers and America's greatest logician".[2] An innovator in many fields (including philosophy of science, epistemology, metaphysics, mathematics, statistics, research methodology, and the design of experiments in astronomy, geophysics, and psychology) Peirce considered himself a logician first and foremost. He made major contributions to logic, but logic for him encompassed much of that which is now called epistemology and philosophy of science. He saw logic as the Charles Sanders Peirce formal branch of semiotics, of which he is a founder. As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by Born September 10, 1839 electrical switching circuits, an idea used decades later to Cambridge, Massachusetts produce digital computers.[3] Died April 19, 1914 (aged 74) Milford, Pennsylvania Contents Nationality American 1 Life Fields Logic, Mathematics, 1.1 United States Coast Survey Statistics, Philosophy, 1.2 Johns Hopkins University Metrology, Chemistry 1.3 Poverty Religious Episcopal but 2 Reception 3 Works stance unconventional 4 Mathematics 4.1 Mathematics of logic C.
    [Show full text]
  • From Braudel to Derrida: Mohammed Arkoun’S Rethinking of Islam and Religion
    MEJCC Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 4 (2011) 23–43 brill.nl/mjcc From Braudel to Derrida: Mohammed Arkoun’s Rethinking of Islam and Religion Carool Kersten King’s College London, UK Email: [email protected] Abstract Th is article examines Mohammed Arkoun as one of the pioneers of a new Muslim intellectualism seeking new ways of engaging with Islam by combining intimate familiarity with the Islamic civilizational heritage (turath ) and solid knowledge of recent achievements by the Western academe in the humanities and social sciences. It will show how his groundbreaking and agenda- setting work in Islamic studies refl ects a convergence of the spatiotemporal concerns of an intellectual historian inspired by the Annales School with an epistemological critique drawing on structuralist and poststructuralist ideas. Infl uenced by Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics and the deconstructionist philosophy of Jacques Derrida, Arkoun evolved from a specialist in the intellectual history of medieval Islam into a generic critic of epistemologies, advocating a concept of so-called ‘emerging reason’ which transcends existing forms of religious reason, Enlightenment rationalism and the tele-techno-scientifi c reason of the postmodern globalizing world. Th is article concludes that Arkoun’s proposals challenge the intellectual binary of the West versus Islam and the historical dichotomy between the northern and southern Mediterranean. Keywords Arkoun , Islam , epistemology , postmodernism , Mediterranean Introduction In the last twenty years or so the literature on the intellectual history of the contemporary Muslim world has begun recognizing a new type of Muslim intellectual (Kersten 2009 : 10). On the spectrum of present-day Muslim thought they are located on the opposite side from the exponents of a narrow and scripture-based interpretation of Islamic revivalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Jakobson and the Birth of Linguistic Structuralism
    Sign Systems Studies 39(1), 2011 Roman Jakobson and the birth of linguistic structuralism W. Keith Percival Department of Linguistics, The University of Kansas 3815 N. E. 89th Street, Seattle, WA 98115, U.S.A e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The term “structuralism” was introduced into linguistics by Roman Jakobson in the early days of the Linguistic Circle of Prague, founded in 1926. The cluster of ideas defended by Jakobson and his colleagues can be specified but differ considerably from the concept of structuralism as it has come to be understood more recently. That took place because from the 1930s on it became customary to equate structuralism with the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, as expounded in his posthumous Cours de linguistique générale (1916). It can be shown, however, that Jakobson’s group rejected Saussure’s theory for ideological reasons. As the term “structuralism” became more widely used it came to be associated with posi- tivist approaches to linguistics rather than with the original phenomenological orientation that had characterized the Linguistic Circle of Prague. The purpose of this paper is to clarify these different approaches and to suggest that because of its extreme porosity the word “structuralism” is an example of a “terminological pandemic”. More research on the varied uses to which the key terms “structure” and “structuralism” were put will undoubtedly further elucidate this important episode in 20th-century intellectual history. 1. Introduction In this article, I shall examine the early history of linguistic structu- ralism and the role played in it by the Russian philologist and linguist Roman Jakobson (1896–1982).
    [Show full text]
  • A Literary Semiotics Approach to the Semantic Universe of George Orwell’S Nineteen Eighty-Four
    A Literary Semiotics Approach to the Semantic Universe of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four A Literary Semiotics Approach to the Semantic Universe of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four By Murat Kalelioğlu A Literary Semiotics Approach to the Semantic Universe of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four By Murat Kalelioğlu This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Murat Kalelioğlu All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-2018-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-2018-9 Dedicated to in loving memory of my beloved mother Muazzez KALELİOĞLU TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix List of Figures............................................................................................. xi Foreword ................................................................................................... xii V. Doğan Günay Preface ....................................................................................................... xv List of Abbreviations ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook-Of-Semiotics.Pdf
    Page i Handbook of Semiotics Page ii Advances in Semiotics THOMAS A. SEBEOK, GENERAL EDITOR Page iii Handbook of Semiotics Winfried Nöth Indiana University Press Bloomington and Indianapolis Page iv First Paperback Edition 1995 This English­language edition is the enlarged and completely revised version of a work by Winfried Nöth originally published as Handbuch der Semiotik in 1985 by J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. ©1990 by Winfried Nöth All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data Nöth, Winfried. [Handbuch der Semiotik. English] Handbook of semiotics / Winfried Nöth. p. cm.—(Advances in semiotics) Enlarged translation of: Handbuch der Semiotik. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. ISBN 0­253­34120­5 1. Semiotics—handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Communication —Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. II. Series. P99.N6513 1990 302.2—dc20 89­45199 ISBN 0­253­20959­5 (pbk.) CIP 4 5 6 00 99 98 Page v CONTENTS Preface ix Introduction 3 I. History and Classics of Modern Semiotics History of Semiotics 11 Peirce 39 Morris 48 Saussure 56 Hjelmslev 64 Jakobson 74 II. Sign and Meaning Sign 79 Meaning, Sense, and Reference 92 Semantics and Semiotics 103 Typology of Signs: Sign, Signal, Index 107 Symbol 115 Icon and Iconicity 121 Metaphor 128 Information 134 Page vi III.
    [Show full text]
  • The Print Page Space As Aesthetic Discourse Art Semiotic in Democracy
    The Print Page Space as Aesthetic Discourse Art Semiotic in Democracy TANIA LETIZIA GObbeTT University of Bologna - University of Trento (Italy) Abstract Roland Barthes writing, to the zero degree, seemed to put its accent on the differences between art and craft as a question of style, mannerism: writing limits, merges, proportions, isolate, build its own social reality, but is it still a thoughtful shape? Or it is the suit, the envelop, the skin, of a constitutional part of the ‘I’, that revolts this scenery, that renews the pact as agreement of the rights of the person, the individual outside the conveniences as before 1996 were the ground of the usury of any political term? Among linguistic and semiotic we can discover the traits of differences as to perceive its eidetic necessity, the elements and the objects. Since Erik Landowsky, in which the page is structured as a painting of spaces connotations, oblique to the reader or since Giovanni Anceschi where the art of the page it is experience of communication, the occurrence, the author, inference a social space and a collective «I», the subject restrain, closes, exemplify or even models what is expanded, translated, loosened. From the identity body of the newspaper we get to the unreachable public identity of the consumer. The chiastic gesture or the censure one, or the polisemic as it is involved just in the object: it should impress a certain quality of the message and continuity of the communication. A semiotic landscape, in some of the terms of Ruggero Pierantoni, of light phenomenon, while on the newspaper could be seen in its own categories exploited as re-reading a townscape, as the voyageur propose a journey, the compositions aspects may represent some ways to renew the fragmented process, pauses, attitudes to rebuild a reader theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Peircean Interpretation of Postmodern Architecture
    PEIRCEAN INTERPRETATION OF POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE A Dissertation by IWAO TAKAHASHI Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Robert Warden Committee Members, Frances E. Downing Robert W. Burch Gregory F. Pappas Head of Department, Ward V. Wells December 2013 Major Subject: Architecture Copyright 2013 Iwao Takahashi ABSTRACT The influence of philosophy on architectural theory contributes to the formulation of architectural theory in the history of architecture. This relationship created the oscillation of architectural theory between rationalism and romanticism reflecting the woven tendency of philosophy such as enlightenment and counter-enlightenment movement. This dissertation research focuses on architectural language theory which maintains a tight relationship with the philosophy of language. Postmodern architecture during the period of the 1970s through 1980s is examined to determine meanings of architecture, and the language theory of architecture. It followed the philosophy of language originated from Ferdinand de Saussure who influenced theorists, and explicitly sign theorists influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce. This theoretical underpinning of language theory is questionable because of an inappropriate application of the sign theory of Charles Sanders Peirce in terms of principal interpretation of language structure, dyadic and triadic type of language. This research re-interprets the meaning of architecture during postmodern period along with Peirce’s semeiotic theory, and American Pragmatism that Peirce originally invented. The collection of evidence from architectural history and the influence from philosophy provides a conceptual sketch that the oscillation of theoretical tendency is the source of architectural creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Full-Text (PDF)
    Vol.7(3), pp. 59-66, March 2015 DOI: 10.5897/JMCS2014.0412 Article Number: ABC767050719 Journal of Media and Communication ISSN 2141 -2189 Copyright © 2015 Studies Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournlas.org/JMCS Full Length Research Paper Reinterpreting some key concepts in Barthes’ theory Sui Yan and Fan Ming* Foreign Languages Department, Beijing University of Agriculture, 7 Beinong Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102206, China. Received 16 September; 2014; Accepted 12 February, 2015 The paper makes clear some basic concepts in semiotic studies like signifier, signified and referent and core concepts in Roland Barthes’s theory are restudied with new developments especially in connotateurs, meta-language and meaning transfer, which play a key role in understanding how myth is constructed with the two mechanisms of naturalizing and generalizing. With the new understanding, the paper studies the representative signs from television and their semiotic function and concludes that meaning transfer is the fundamental way for media signs to construct new meanings. Key words: semiotics, Barthes, media signs INTRODUCTION Signification, denotation, connotation and meta- community’ (Cullen, 1976: 19) buys into. But for Barthes, language the culmination of meaning created by signifier plus signified is more than just a system of random naming or It is Ferdinand de Saussure who makes the important nomenclature. It is subject to a rich layering of meaning distinction between signifier and signified of a sign according to each country’s cultures. Barthes (1981) and (Saussure, 1915/1966), which incurs persistent and Moriarty (1991) extend the study of signs in culture, and diversified study on the structural characteristics of signs.
    [Show full text]
  • ENSAYOS DE Semiótica POÉTICA
    ENSAVOS DE SEMiÓTICA POÉTICA ENSAYOS DE SEMiÓTICA POÉTICA Conjunto dirigido por A. J. GREIMAS con la colaboración de Michel Arrivé, Jean-Claude Coquet, Jean-Paul Dumont, Jacques Geninasca, Nicole Gueunier, Jean-Louis Houdebine, Julia Kristeva, Franc¡ois Rastier, Teun A. Van Dijk, Claude Zilberberg EDITORIAL PLANETA BARCELONA SUMARIO HACIA UNA TEORíA DEL DISCURSO POÉTICO 9 1. Introducción 11 1.1. El hecho poético, 11; 1.2. La lectura de los textos poéticos, 12; 1.3. La organi- zación poética, 14. 11. El signo poético 16 11.1. Signo y objeto poético. 16; 11.2. El nivel prosódico, 17; 11.3. El nivel sintáctico,18. 111. El discurso poético 19 111.1. El isomorfismo de la expresión y del contenido, 19; 111.2. El plano de la expre- sión, 22; 111.3. El plano del contenido, 24. IV. El objeto poético 30 PROBLEMAS DE LA EXPRESiÓN 35 Poética y lingüística 37 1. Acerca del objeto poético, 37; 11. Equivalencias horizontales y verticales, 39; 111. ¿Se pueden mitigar las insuficiencias de la teoría Iingüistica?, 41; IV. Homolo- gación de los niveles, 43; V. Análisis del nivel fónico y prosódico, 45; VI. Puntos de equivalencia, 47; VII. Sistemas de descripción, 49; VIII. Disonancias y con- sonancias prosódicas, 52; IX. Los puntos débiles de la descripción Iingüistica, 55; X. Hacia una gramática del discurso poético, 56. Fragmentación convencional y significación 61 1. Elaboración de un enrejado táxico, 62; 11. Elementos de ilustración, 74. PROBLEMAS DEL CONTENIDO 83 Estructuración y destrucción del signo en algunos textos de Jarry 85 1. El texto como estructuración de un sistema de signos, 87; 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Vectors of Sense-Production: Deleuze, Hjelmslev, and Digital Ontogenesis by MICHAEL EBY
    LA DELEUZIANA – ONLINE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY – ISSN 2421-3098 N. 11/2020 – DIFFERENTIAL HETEROGENESIS Vectors of Sense-Production: Deleuze, Hjelmslev, and Digital Ontogenesis by MICHAEL EBY Abstract Two recent tendencies in digital-cultural theory have attempted to critique a representational view of computation through an attention to the language that itemizes computational processes. This paper argues that that each of the thinkers aligned with these two broad camps tend to reduce this language to one of two kinds of structure. The first approach sees the structures of computation and digitality as chiefly social; the second sees these structures as an extension of mathematical and philosophical logic. This paper proposes that the task of thinking outside this schema necessitates a methodological approach to computational elaborations of language not in terms of a logic of struc- ture but a logic of sense. Through the work of Gilles Deleuze—by way of linguist Louis Hjelmslev—I introduce a notion of sense suitable for the analysis of the logico-mathematical statements that com- prise digitality. I then read two examples from machine learning and computational linguistics re- search that provide occasion to consider aspects of digitality traditionally elided by the dominant usages of computers in the natural and social sciences. Finally, I conclude with some proposals re- garding how we might conceive of the ontogeny of a digital object from this perspective. Introduction In digital-cultural theory, two contemporary theoretical tendencies have arisen which seek to exceed a representational view of computation through an attention to the language of digitality. The first of these tendencies consists of thinkers who open up computational vocabularies—executable code, programming languages, network protocols, web ontolo- gies, algorithmic abstractions—to formalist or political readings (Galloway 2006; Cox & McLean 2013; Cramer 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • [Paper from My Keynote Talk at Diagrams Symposium, DIT, Dublin, September 2015, States.Com/Symposium/] What Is A
    [Paper from my keynote talk at Diagrams Symposium, DIT, Dublin, September 2015, http://on-off- states.com/symposium/] What is a diagram (for a sign)? Abstract. This paper explains the role of diagrams in the definition of the sign as process. It defines the sign’s elements as having relative stability rather than fixed identity. It then gives a new definition of the diagram to fit the definition of the process sign. This new definition is situated in relation to work by O’Sullivan and Mullarkey on diagrams, followed by a rebuttal of Vellodi’s critique of Mullarkey. Vellodi’s distinction between Deleuze and Peirce on diagrams is then rejected as too stark. Deleuze’s definition of the diagram is then analysed in detail to allow for a concluding critique of Hjelmslev’s claims for the priority of structure in language and for the sign. The sign as selection Sign (def.): A sign is the selection of a set against a substratum, and a suite of diagrams enacting the processes accompanying the selection; ex. free water can be given by the sign {water, 0$} and diagrams expressing the social, environmental and existential effects of free water on a wider substratum of relatively stable things and ideas When it defines the sign as a selection of a set, process philosophy comes up against a deep problem.1 Isn’t a set a fixed entity, a collection of things? The first stage in answering this objection rests on describing selection more precisely: first, it is a selecting, an ongoing process; second, this selecting is accompanied by changes in the set and its substratum (everything not included in the set); third, these changes are variations in the intensities of relations in and around all elements.
    [Show full text]