Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2210423
Andreas Widoff
ABSTRACT The paper investigates the status of general meanings in prepositional semantics. On the basis of a review of the strategies employed in different accounts of prepositions, the paper argues that strict adherence to the notion of general meanings is unfeasible in the field, partly because a purely deductive method of description breaks down as the number of possible oppositions increases. This failure points to the need for a theoretical reformulation of the notion. The paper suggests that there are three conservative ways to pursue such a reformulation: by rejecting the idea that general meanings are autonomous from thought, by rejecting the principle of oppositional constitution or by rejecting the requirement of monosemy. The merits and flaws of these strategies are discussed and some theoretical and methodological motives in choosing between them are considered.
{"title":"On the feasibility of general meanings in prepositional semantics","authors":"Andreas Widoff","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2210423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2210423","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper investigates the status of general meanings in prepositional semantics. On the basis of a review of the strategies employed in different accounts of prepositions, the paper argues that strict adherence to the notion of general meanings is unfeasible in the field, partly because a purely deductive method of description breaks down as the number of possible oppositions increases. This failure points to the need for a theoretical reformulation of the notion. The paper suggests that there are three conservative ways to pursue such a reformulation: by rejecting the idea that general meanings are autonomous from thought, by rejecting the principle of oppositional constitution or by rejecting the requirement of monosemy. The merits and flaws of these strategies are discussed and some theoretical and methodological motives in choosing between them are considered.","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"11 1","pages":"16 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86226274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2210241
"Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 2022." Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), p. 1
"Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 2022."Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), p. 1
{"title":"Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 2022","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2210241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2210241","url":null,"abstract":"\"Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 2022.\" Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), p. 1","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135754740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2234759
Anne-Gaëlle Toutain
RÉSUMÉCet article s’efforce de caractériser la problématique dans laquelle s’inscrit la notion structuraliste de Gesamtbedeutung, à travers une analyse comparée de textes de Hjelmslev, Jakobson et Benveniste. Tandis que les élaborations des deux premiers sont fondamentalement comparables, l’élaboration benvenistienne est dotée d’une remarquable singularité. Cette différence, qui rompt l’unité du structuralisme européen, pourtant caractérisé par sa commune mécompréhension de la théorie saussurienne, soulève deux questions importantes et remarquablement corrélatives : celle de la signification et celle du métalangage, qui sont ensuite envisagées à la lumière de la théorisation saussurienne de la langue.MOTS-CLÉS: Valeurfonctionnementsignificationmétalangagepsychanalyse Note sur l’auteurAgrégée de lettres modernes et docteur en linguistique, Anne-Gaëlle Toutain est maître d’enseignement et de recherche habilitée à diriger des recherches en linguistique française synchronique et diachronique et en histoire et épistémologie de la linguistique à l’Institut de langue et de littérature françaises de l’université de Berne. Ses recherches s’inscrivent dans le champ de l’épistémologie de la linguistique et portent en particulier sur la linguistique saussurienne et, dans ce cadre, sur l’articulation entre linguistique et psychanalyse et entre linguistique et biologie (neurolinguistique).Notes1 Jakobson emploie l’expression Gesamtbedeutung, et regrette l’utilisation dans La catégorie des cas de celle de Grundbedeutung, qui lui paraît trop susceptible d’évoquer celle de signification principale (Hauptbedeutung). Hjelmslev insiste pour sa part sur la nécessité de parler de Grundbedeutung ; cette signification, explicative des emplois, est en effet, en tant que telle, abstraite. Voir Hjelmslev (Citation1972a, I, 37 et II, 46, et Citation1971, 124) et Jakobson (Citation1971, 27).2 Elle y apparaît notamment dans le cadre de l’établissement d’un schéma de catégories universel se trouvant au fondement de tout système grammatical, établissement qui se situe dans la lignée de certaines propositions des Principes de grammaire générale (Hjelmslev Citation1928), texte qui serait donc à prendre en considération dans le cadre d’une étude de la constitution de cette notion de Grundbedeutung au fil de l’élaboration hjelmslevienne. C’est cependant, sauf erreur, dans Sprogsystem og sprogforandring qu’elle apparaît pour la première fois. On la retrouve ensuite dans La catégorie des cas (1935/1937; Hjelmslev Citation1972a), puis dans l’« Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes » (1936 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971), « La structure morphologique » (1939 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971), « Animé et inanimé, personnel et non-personnel » (1956 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971) et « Pour une sémantique structurale » (1957 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971).3 Voir également, cependant, pour ce rejet du psychologisme et du « sentiment linguistique », corrélatif d’une affirmation du caractère purement linguis
{"title":"Analyse et logique de la signification : une analyse épistémologique de la notion structuraliste de <i>Gesamtbedeutung</i>","authors":"Anne-Gaëlle Toutain","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2234759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2234759","url":null,"abstract":"RÉSUMÉCet article s’efforce de caractériser la problématique dans laquelle s’inscrit la notion structuraliste de Gesamtbedeutung, à travers une analyse comparée de textes de Hjelmslev, Jakobson et Benveniste. Tandis que les élaborations des deux premiers sont fondamentalement comparables, l’élaboration benvenistienne est dotée d’une remarquable singularité. Cette différence, qui rompt l’unité du structuralisme européen, pourtant caractérisé par sa commune mécompréhension de la théorie saussurienne, soulève deux questions importantes et remarquablement corrélatives : celle de la signification et celle du métalangage, qui sont ensuite envisagées à la lumière de la théorisation saussurienne de la langue.MOTS-CLÉS: Valeurfonctionnementsignificationmétalangagepsychanalyse Note sur l’auteurAgrégée de lettres modernes et docteur en linguistique, Anne-Gaëlle Toutain est maître d’enseignement et de recherche habilitée à diriger des recherches en linguistique française synchronique et diachronique et en histoire et épistémologie de la linguistique à l’Institut de langue et de littérature françaises de l’université de Berne. Ses recherches s’inscrivent dans le champ de l’épistémologie de la linguistique et portent en particulier sur la linguistique saussurienne et, dans ce cadre, sur l’articulation entre linguistique et psychanalyse et entre linguistique et biologie (neurolinguistique).Notes1 Jakobson emploie l’expression Gesamtbedeutung, et regrette l’utilisation dans La catégorie des cas de celle de Grundbedeutung, qui lui paraît trop susceptible d’évoquer celle de signification principale (Hauptbedeutung). Hjelmslev insiste pour sa part sur la nécessité de parler de Grundbedeutung ; cette signification, explicative des emplois, est en effet, en tant que telle, abstraite. Voir Hjelmslev (Citation1972a, I, 37 et II, 46, et Citation1971, 124) et Jakobson (Citation1971, 27).2 Elle y apparaît notamment dans le cadre de l’établissement d’un schéma de catégories universel se trouvant au fondement de tout système grammatical, établissement qui se situe dans la lignée de certaines propositions des Principes de grammaire générale (Hjelmslev Citation1928), texte qui serait donc à prendre en considération dans le cadre d’une étude de la constitution de cette notion de Grundbedeutung au fil de l’élaboration hjelmslevienne. C’est cependant, sauf erreur, dans Sprogsystem og sprogforandring qu’elle apparaît pour la première fois. On la retrouve ensuite dans La catégorie des cas (1935/1937; Hjelmslev Citation1972a), puis dans l’« Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes » (1936 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971), « La structure morphologique » (1939 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971), « Animé et inanimé, personnel et non-personnel » (1956 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971) et « Pour une sémantique structurale » (1957 ; in Hjelmslev Citation1971).3 Voir également, cependant, pour ce rejet du psychologisme et du « sentiment linguistique », corrélatif d’une affirmation du caractère purement linguis","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135798451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2234234
Eva Krásová
ABSTRACTThis article examines the idea of the “potentiality” of language phenomena as expressed by Vilém Mathesius in 1911, and its relation to the debate on the general or basic concept of a linguistic category, discussed by Roman Jakobson, Louis Hjelmslev and others around 1935. We track the concept of potentiality in Roman Jakobson’s and Louis Hjelmslev’s texts from the period, then we point out similarities with ideas expressed by Émile Benveniste around the same time. Next, we examine Mathesius’ very different idea of potentiality as the state of linguistic expressions that may be otherwise. However, by tracking the problem through Mathesius’ later texts, I follow how his theorization gradually develops to converge with Jakobson’s. I will stress the importance for Mathesius as a professor of English philology of the problem of the sentence, with a focus on the Focus-Topic articulation theory in the whole process.KEYWORDS: SyntaxpotentialityRoman JakobsonVilém MathesiusLouis HjelmslevEmile Benveniste AcknowledgementThis article has been produced within the Cooperatio program (field: Literature) of Charles University in Prague.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The whole conceptualisation of structural linguistics in the 1920s and 1930s in terms of ‘schools’ and ‘circles’, attributed to various European cities, is a specific methodological approach to the history of sciences especially used by scholars connected with the Czech tradition of writing about the Prague School (Sládek Citation2015; Toman Citation1995; Volek Citation1985). In spite of neglect and open criticism for its tendency to narrativisation and ideologisation (Daszuta Citation2018; Gierowski Citation2010; Sériot Citation2017), this approach still bears a certain explicative power. We adopt it as our starting point, not in an effort to adhere to its methodology but to have some elementary heuristic perspective and also, because some participants of the debate itself, namely Jakobson, have a propensity to see events in these terms (see Jakobson’s review of the 1936 congress in Copenhagen, Jakobson Citation1936).2 We are using a theorisation of the genitive by Karel Hausenblas, a continuator of the Prague School linguistics, and, in a way, heir to Jakobson’s analysis.3 We have tried to demonstrate how Émile Benveniste’s thought in the 1960es may be connected to the texts of Vladimír Skalička, tracking the possible connection to the 1948 essay “The need for the linguistics of ’la parole’” (Krásová and Koblížek Citation2019).4 The problem of the phoneme and its definition is of course one of the seminal topics of the Prague school. Investigating Mathesius’s role in the debate is unfortunately out of the range of this article.5 We refer here not to the real nature of the Neogrammarian linguistics, but to the specific role it has in Mathesius’ thinking. For Mathesius, the Neogrammarian school represents the unfortunately strict a
{"title":"The general meaning as a potential","authors":"Eva Krásová","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2234234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2234234","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article examines the idea of the “potentiality” of language phenomena as expressed by Vilém Mathesius in 1911, and its relation to the debate on the general or basic concept of a linguistic category, discussed by Roman Jakobson, Louis Hjelmslev and others around 1935. We track the concept of potentiality in Roman Jakobson’s and Louis Hjelmslev’s texts from the period, then we point out similarities with ideas expressed by Émile Benveniste around the same time. Next, we examine Mathesius’ very different idea of potentiality as the state of linguistic expressions that may be otherwise. However, by tracking the problem through Mathesius’ later texts, I follow how his theorization gradually develops to converge with Jakobson’s. I will stress the importance for Mathesius as a professor of English philology of the problem of the sentence, with a focus on the Focus-Topic articulation theory in the whole process.KEYWORDS: SyntaxpotentialityRoman JakobsonVilém MathesiusLouis HjelmslevEmile Benveniste AcknowledgementThis article has been produced within the Cooperatio program (field: Literature) of Charles University in Prague.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The whole conceptualisation of structural linguistics in the 1920s and 1930s in terms of ‘schools’ and ‘circles’, attributed to various European cities, is a specific methodological approach to the history of sciences especially used by scholars connected with the Czech tradition of writing about the Prague School (Sládek Citation2015; Toman Citation1995; Volek Citation1985). In spite of neglect and open criticism for its tendency to narrativisation and ideologisation (Daszuta Citation2018; Gierowski Citation2010; Sériot Citation2017), this approach still bears a certain explicative power. We adopt it as our starting point, not in an effort to adhere to its methodology but to have some elementary heuristic perspective and also, because some participants of the debate itself, namely Jakobson, have a propensity to see events in these terms (see Jakobson’s review of the 1936 congress in Copenhagen, Jakobson Citation1936).2 We are using a theorisation of the genitive by Karel Hausenblas, a continuator of the Prague School linguistics, and, in a way, heir to Jakobson’s analysis.3 We have tried to demonstrate how Émile Benveniste’s thought in the 1960es may be connected to the texts of Vladimír Skalička, tracking the possible connection to the 1948 essay “The need for the linguistics of ’la parole’” (Krásová and Koblížek Citation2019).4 The problem of the phoneme and its definition is of course one of the seminal topics of the Prague school. Investigating Mathesius’s role in the debate is unfortunately out of the range of this article.5 We refer here not to the real nature of the Neogrammarian linguistics, but to the specific role it has in Mathesius’ thinking. For Mathesius, the Neogrammarian school represents the unfortunately strict a","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135799419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2210190
F. Gregersen
{"title":"The desire to make a difference: Jacob Louis Mey III, 30 October 1926–10 February 2023","authors":"F. Gregersen","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2210190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2210190","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"45 1","pages":"1 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77583703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2241281
Andrea Picciuolo Aresta
The debate on the semantic analysis of both lexical and grammatical forms has been salient since the early days of the institutionalisation of semiotics, as fundamental to the theoretical and methodological curriculum of this disciplinary domain. In this debate, the concept of content-figurae, or semantic traits, plays a major role. The well-established sources for this concept and the corresponding method of analysis are the works of Hjelmslev and Jakobson, mediated through Umberto Eco’s thinking. In Eco’s framework, the idea of content-figurae is interpreted as that of ‘semantic primitives, and on that ground, its epistemological foundation and methodological efficacy are refuted. In this article, I try to relate Eco’s semiotic position to Hjelmslev’s and Jakobsons’s positions in linguistic (grammatical) semantics, discussing their principles of semantic analysis of grammatical forms from the perspective of the institutionalisation of semiotics as a disciplinary domain.
{"title":"The role of the dispute about the nature of content- <i>figurae</i> in structural semantics in semiotics’ history: Hjelmslev, Jakobson, and Eco","authors":"Andrea Picciuolo Aresta","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2241281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2241281","url":null,"abstract":"The debate on the semantic analysis of both lexical and grammatical forms has been salient since the early days of the institutionalisation of semiotics, as fundamental to the theoretical and methodological curriculum of this disciplinary domain. In this debate, the concept of content-figurae, or semantic traits, plays a major role. The well-established sources for this concept and the corresponding method of analysis are the works of Hjelmslev and Jakobson, mediated through Umberto Eco’s thinking. In Eco’s framework, the idea of content-figurae is interpreted as that of ‘semantic primitives, and on that ground, its epistemological foundation and methodological efficacy are refuted. In this article, I try to relate Eco’s semiotic position to Hjelmslev’s and Jakobsons’s positions in linguistic (grammatical) semantics, discussing their principles of semantic analysis of grammatical forms from the perspective of the institutionalisation of semiotics as a disciplinary domain.","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135798210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2240685
David Romand
ABSTRACTIn the present article, I revisit the feeling-based model of semantics and semiotics proposed in 1908 by the Austrian philosopher Heinrich Gomperz (1873–1942) within the framework of his “semasiology” (Semasiologie). I discuss how Gomperz regarded epistemic (“intellectual”) feelings as the foundations of both conceptual and grammatical meanings, but also of the “semiotization” of the statement (Aussage). Special emphasis is placed on how, for him, affective states help make the statement a global meaningful structure. An analysis of Gomperz’s psychoaffective model leads me to wonder about the soundness of the provocative view that epistemic feelings may be the core psychological components of linguistic meaning.KEYWORDS: Heinrich Gomperzsemanticssemioticsepistemic feelingsemantic internalismimage schema AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Lorenzo Cigana and Henrik Jørgensen for having given me the opportunity to present my research on Gomperz and semasiology within the framework of the thematic workshop “Between Form and Meaning: The Structural Quest for ‘Gesamtbedeutungen’,” held on the occasion of ICHoLS XV – the present article being partly based on the text of my presentation. As the two guest editors of this issue of Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Lorenzo and Henrik also deserve special thanks for their patience and commitment regarding the preparation of my manuscript. I am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and Hartmut Haberland and Lars Heltoft, the two journal’s editors, whose insightful comments permitted me to improve the quality of the manuscript, and to Barbara Every for proofreading the English text.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In spite of recent renewed interest in his work, the literature on Gomperz is astonishingly scarce, especially in English. For an overview of Gomperz’s thought and life, see Gomperz (Citation1943), Seiler and Stadler (Citation1994), and Hacohen (Citation2000, 149–155). For a detailed analysis of the issues discussed in the present article, see my recent contributions (Romand Citation2019a; Citation2019b; Citation2022a). Further developments on Gomperz’s Weltanschauungslehre and theory of language can be found in Henckmann (Citation1988), Kiesow (Citation1990), and Seiler (Citation1991).2 On the conceptual and genealogical link between empiriocriticism and pathempiricism as two instances of “affectivist” immanentist positivism, see Romand (Citation2019a). Although Gomperz prepared his doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Ernst Mach, the views expounded in his Weltanschauungslehre prove to be much more closely related to Avenarius’s feeling-based model than to Mach’s sensation-based positivist model. Among other characteristic features of his pathempiricist doctrine, his conception of the “statement” (Aussage) as the basic structural and functional unit of language and experience has its roots, at least partially, in the Kr
在本文中，我重新审视了奥地利哲学家海因里希·冈珀茨(1873-1942)于1908年在他的“符号学”(Semasiologie)框架内提出的基于情感的语义学和符号学模型。我将讨论冈珀兹如何将认知(“知性”)感受视为概念意义和语法意义的基础，同时也是陈述的“符号化”的基础(奥塞奇)。特别强调的是，对他来说，情感状态如何帮助陈述成为一个全球性的有意义的结构。对Gomperz的心理情感模型的分析使我对认知感受可能是语言意义的核心心理成分这一具有挑衅性的观点的合理性产生怀疑。致谢我要感谢Lorenzo Cigana和Henrik Jørgensen给我机会在ICHoLS XV举办的主题研讨会“在形式与意义之间:对‘Gesamtbedeutungen’的结构探索”的框架内介绍我对贡伯兹和符语学的研究——本文部分基于我的演讲文本。Lorenzo和Henrik作为本期《哈夫尼西亚语言学学报》的两位客座编辑，在我的稿件准备过程中，他们的耐心和付出值得特别感谢。我还要感谢两位匿名审稿人，以及两位期刊编辑哈特穆特·哈伯兰和拉尔斯·赫尔托夫特，他们富有洞察力的评论使我得以提高手稿的质量，我还要感谢芭芭拉·埃夫特对英文文本的校对。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1尽管最近人们对他的作品重新产生了兴趣，但关于冈珀茨的文献却少得惊人，尤其是英文的。关于贡珀茨的思想和生活的概述，请参见贡珀茨(Citation1943)，塞勒和斯塔德勒(Citation1994)和哈科恩(Citation2000, 149-155)。有关本文中讨论的问题的详细分析，请参阅我最近的贡献(roman Citation2019a;Citation2019b;Citation2022a)。在冈伯兹的世界观和语言理论的进一步发展可以在亨克曼(Citation1988)、基索夫(Citation1990)和塞勒(Citation1991)中找到关于经验批判主义和无经验主义作为“情感主义”内在实证主义的两个实例之间的概念和谱系联系，见罗曼(Citation2019a)。虽然冈珀茨的博士论文是在恩斯特·马赫的指导下完成的，但他在《世界观》一书中所阐述的观点与阿芬那留斯的以感觉为基础的模型的关系要比与马赫的以感觉为基础的实证主义模型的关系密切得多。在他的病理经验主义学说的其他特征中，他的“陈述”(Aussage)作为语言和经验的基本结构和功能单位的概念，至少部分地根源于《理性批判》(Citation1888-1890)。参见罗曼(Citation2019a;Citation2022a)。3关于认识论和语义学中的内在主义概念，见Kornblith (Citation2001)和Riemer (Citation2016)关于认识论中的自然主义，见Rysiew (Citation2021)关于语言的“心理情感主义”/“心理情感”方法的概念，见罗曼(Citation2021, Citation2022a)“认知感觉”或“情感”的概念是一个古老的概念，在19世纪和20世纪初备受争议，最近经历了对情感哲学和心灵哲学的新兴趣。Cf. Arango-Muñoz and Michaelian (Citation2014)， Candiotto (Citation2020)， and roman (Citationin pressa)正如这篇文章的两位匿名评论者之一所强调的那样，冈珀兹的语义学可以说是一种尝试，通过使用当前流行的心理语言学和神经语言学的语言，将语义学知识建立在感觉的基础上。这是对的，但我要特别说明的是，在这里，“感觉”不是一个泛指各种心理或身体过程的总称，而是对一种特定类型的精神状态的定义良好的表达。更具体地说，Gomperz的意图是将语言意义“扎根”在基本的经验实体中，这些实体作为心灵的评价因素，具有直观和抽象的认知形式。在《Semasiologie》的第二章(Gomperz Citation1908, 140-219)中，Gomperz批判性地回顾了他认为迄今为止被考虑解决“语言意义问题”的三种主要方法，即“实在论”、“唯名论”和“理性主义”——根据这些概念，语义知识的起源分别在于外部世界的某些属性、心灵的表征活动和“思维能力”。 正如他努力证明的那样，病理经验主义观点的优点是结合了其他三种观点在理论和认识论上的优点，同时避免了它们的缺点。Gomperz的内在主义和自然主义的基于感觉的语义学方法，被认为是对更传统的语言意义方法的一种反应，在当前的心理和神经语义学背景下，获得了越来越多的话题性。在这方面，它与两个观点形成对比:(a)概念的具身观点，即概念知识首先植根于感知和运动系统，并在必要时对应于冈珀兹所谓的“唯名论”立场;(b)概念的模态理论，即概念知识有其自己的形式，植根于“思想语言”，应与新理性主义立场相一致。Cf. Kiefer and powder m<e:1> ller (Citation2012)。在本文的结语中，我将根据目前的具身认知研究来谈谈Gomperz的观点的意义，同时强调它可以为认知心理学的“意象图式”研究项目提供一个富有成效的解释性框架。“我在此提议的所有德文和法文译本都是我的根据19世纪末和20世纪初讲德语的语言心理学家的流行观点，虽然两者都是心理生活的组成要素，但Vorstellung和gef<e:1>是两种不同类型的心理实体，因为它们由不同的独特属性组成，所以彼此不可约化。这种本体论上的区别与功能上的区别密切相关，这两类心理状态中的每一类都被认为在语言意识的形成中发挥着各自的作用。超越这一观点的驱动力是，作为心理的评估性和元认知因素，感觉或情感状态通过用一种不直接包含在表征内容中的额外信息来证明它们，从而帮助经验地区分和多样化表征内容固有的信息。参见roman (Citation2021;Citation2022a) .10这个术语直接借用自阿芬那留斯，他在1888 - 1890年的《评论》(Citation1888-1890)中将“感觉”(gef<e:1> hle)称为“字符”(Charaktere)尽管这种表达直到最近才普及，但与普遍看法相反，认知感受的问题绝不是新的，而且在冈珀茨的时代，特别是在讲德语的国家，已经非常流行。在这里，我们处理的问题在19世纪末和20世纪初，随着情感心理学中“感觉的多维理论”的出现而变得特别相关——这种观点认为，快乐和不快乐只是情感生活的一个体验“维度”，以及其他方面。作为一名认知情感理论家，冈珀兹首先从阿芬那利斯和利普斯那里获得灵感，他在《世界观》(Weltansschauungslehre)中简要评论了这两位主要的情感理论家(Gomperz Citation1905, 377-378)。阿芬那留斯，在他的第二卷《理性批判》(阿芬那留斯引证，1890)中，提出了享乐感受和认知感受之间的明确区分，并试图，可能是第一次，建立这些感受的完整分类。参见罗曼(引文即将出版)。在Vom fhlen, Wollen和Denken (Lipps引文，1902)的第一版中，Lipps提出了一种复杂的现象学分析，分析情感状态以及它们如何参与认知和智力过程的形成——一
{"title":"Epistemic feelings and the making of the statement as a meaningful linguistic structure. Revisiting Heinrich Gomperz’s psychoaffective model of semantics and semiotics and its significance today","authors":"David Romand","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2240685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2240685","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn the present article, I revisit the feeling-based model of semantics and semiotics proposed in 1908 by the Austrian philosopher Heinrich Gomperz (1873–1942) within the framework of his “semasiology” (Semasiologie). I discuss how Gomperz regarded epistemic (“intellectual”) feelings as the foundations of both conceptual and grammatical meanings, but also of the “semiotization” of the statement (Aussage). Special emphasis is placed on how, for him, affective states help make the statement a global meaningful structure. An analysis of Gomperz’s psychoaffective model leads me to wonder about the soundness of the provocative view that epistemic feelings may be the core psychological components of linguistic meaning.KEYWORDS: Heinrich Gomperzsemanticssemioticsepistemic feelingsemantic internalismimage schema AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Lorenzo Cigana and Henrik Jørgensen for having given me the opportunity to present my research on Gomperz and semasiology within the framework of the thematic workshop “Between Form and Meaning: The Structural Quest for ‘Gesamtbedeutungen’,” held on the occasion of ICHoLS XV – the present article being partly based on the text of my presentation. As the two guest editors of this issue of Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, Lorenzo and Henrik also deserve special thanks for their patience and commitment regarding the preparation of my manuscript. I am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and Hartmut Haberland and Lars Heltoft, the two journal’s editors, whose insightful comments permitted me to improve the quality of the manuscript, and to Barbara Every for proofreading the English text.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In spite of recent renewed interest in his work, the literature on Gomperz is astonishingly scarce, especially in English. For an overview of Gomperz’s thought and life, see Gomperz (Citation1943), Seiler and Stadler (Citation1994), and Hacohen (Citation2000, 149–155). For a detailed analysis of the issues discussed in the present article, see my recent contributions (Romand Citation2019a; Citation2019b; Citation2022a). Further developments on Gomperz’s Weltanschauungslehre and theory of language can be found in Henckmann (Citation1988), Kiesow (Citation1990), and Seiler (Citation1991).2 On the conceptual and genealogical link between empiriocriticism and pathempiricism as two instances of “affectivist” immanentist positivism, see Romand (Citation2019a). Although Gomperz prepared his doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Ernst Mach, the views expounded in his Weltanschauungslehre prove to be much more closely related to Avenarius’s feeling-based model than to Mach’s sensation-based positivist model. Among other characteristic features of his pathempiricist doctrine, his conception of the “statement” (Aussage) as the basic structural and functional unit of language and experience has its roots, at least partially, in the Kr","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"48 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135798452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2211320
Lorenzo Cigana, Henrik Jørgensen
{"title":"The issue of general meanings in structural linguistics and its legacy","authors":"Lorenzo Cigana, Henrik Jørgensen","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2211320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2211320","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"29 1","pages":"6 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79039187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2023.2210441
V. Jensen
ABSTRACT In the 1930s the two Danish linguists Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) and Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) both referred to the Finnish case-system in their discussions of the importance of the concept of case. In my paper, I examine first the problems that arise when cases are excluded from the (syntactical) analysis as in Jespersen’s symbolic system, and thereafter the problems that arise when one tries to establish a localist based system of cases and their semantic values, as in Hjelmslev’s work. Further, I examine the problems that John M. Anderson is confronted with when he analyses the Finnish cases with his localist theory of universal cases. It is concluded (1) that Jespersen’s syntactically based symbolic system cannot capture much of the grammatically encoded information in Finnish; (2) that Hjelmslev’s localist model, which takes Finnish as a benchmark in order to explain the structure of complex case-systems, includes the semantic issue of the relationship between the localistically defined categories and the grammatical ones; (3) that Anderson uses Finnish to showcase his theory, but that his rendering of Finnish also represents a challenge for this.
{"title":"The ‘Finnish Affair’. Semantic vs. syntactic aspects in Jespersen’s, Hjelmslev’s and Anderson’s descriptions of the case-system of Finnish","authors":"V. Jensen","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2023.2210441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2210441","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the 1930s the two Danish linguists Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) and Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) both referred to the Finnish case-system in their discussions of the importance of the concept of case. In my paper, I examine first the problems that arise when cases are excluded from the (syntactical) analysis as in Jespersen’s symbolic system, and thereafter the problems that arise when one tries to establish a localist based system of cases and their semantic values, as in Hjelmslev’s work. Further, I examine the problems that John M. Anderson is confronted with when he analyses the Finnish cases with his localist theory of universal cases. It is concluded (1) that Jespersen’s syntactically based symbolic system cannot capture much of the grammatically encoded information in Finnish; (2) that Hjelmslev’s localist model, which takes Finnish as a benchmark in order to explain the structure of complex case-systems, includes the semantic issue of the relationship between the localistically defined categories and the grammatical ones; (3) that Anderson uses Finnish to showcase his theory, but that his rendering of Finnish also represents a challenge for this.","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"9 1","pages":"72 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84595911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563
V. Naidu, J. Zlatev, Joost van de Weijer
ABSTRACT Recent research in motion event typology has moved beyond the binary Talmian division of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages and has established the existence of at least four distinct typological clusters, instantiated by, for example, Swedish (Germanic), French (Romance), Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian). In this paper, we focus on characteristic features of Telugu, as a representative of the fourth cluster. In the study, 30 native Telugu speakers described video-recorded translocative events, in which the factors boundedness, viewpoint and causation were manipulated. Using the model Holistic Spatial Semantics, we show that Telugu speakers (a) preferentially used Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) predominantly used case markers rather than verbs for encoding Path, (c) extensively used Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequently used Manner verbs in situations of “boundary-crossing” unlike speakers of typical “verb-framed” languages. We propose these features to be criterial of the fourth typological cluster mentioned above, a claim to be investigated in future research.
{"title":"Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology","authors":"V. Naidu, J. Zlatev, Joost van de Weijer","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent research in motion event typology has moved beyond the binary Talmian division of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages and has established the existence of at least four distinct typological clusters, instantiated by, for example, Swedish (Germanic), French (Romance), Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian). In this paper, we focus on characteristic features of Telugu, as a representative of the fourth cluster. In the study, 30 native Telugu speakers described video-recorded translocative events, in which the factors boundedness, viewpoint and causation were manipulated. Using the model Holistic Spatial Semantics, we show that Telugu speakers (a) preferentially used Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) predominantly used case markers rather than verbs for encoding Path, (c) extensively used Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequently used Manner verbs in situations of “boundary-crossing” unlike speakers of typical “verb-framed” languages. We propose these features to be criterial of the fourth typological cluster mentioned above, a claim to be investigated in future research.","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"23 1","pages":"205 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84024872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：