| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Keq26rbk0o","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":264,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ29Ӻ","endOffset":2225°Ӻ,"quote":"Once more we agree, but the statement covers only half of what a viable criterion of “language” would have to contain. It is the remnant of the stimulus-response dogma that cripples this DF: the implication that a linguistic expression or sign cannot be used unless it refers to a specific occurrence (instance) of its “referent”. Though at one time Hockett says that DISPLACEMENT implies “the ability to discuss today what happened yesterday or what may come to pass tomorrow,” he then explains it in terms of information storage, and states; “Any delay between the reception of a stimulus and the appearance of the response means that the former has been coded into a stable spatial array, which endures at least until it is read off in the response”Ӷ41Ӻ. If we can read off today (response) what will be encoded tomorrow (stimulus), then the future would, indeed, by determining the present. Not for a moment would I suggest that this is what Hockett intended. But I would suggest that it comes out that way because he was bent on avoiding terms such as “concept” or “representation”. They would have smacked of mentalism or, worse, teleology—and that was taboo. \nLanguage allows us to talk, not only about things that are remote in time and/or space, but also about things that are nowhere and never happen at all. DISPLACEMENT has to become “symbolicity”. To turn into a symbol, the sign’s one-to-one relation to a perceptual “referent” must be severed.Ӷ42Ӻ That is to say, the sign must be semantically tied to a representation that is independent of the perceptual signals available at any time (not only at the time and place of the sign’s use). Thus, the semanticity of a linguistic sign is constituted, not by a tie that links it to a “thing”, but by one that links it to a representation or concept.Ӷ43Ӻ The fact that a sign, be it verbal or non-verbal, has acquired symbolicity, does of course not preclude that it still be used as a perception-bound sign whenever there is a perceptual input that corresponds to the representation it designates; nor does it preclude that it be used by the sender to trigger a conventional active response in the receiver (as in the case of an ‘imperative’). But what gives a sign the status of symbol is that it can be used without such a “stimulus” and without triggering the active response. The sign for tiger, for instance, will be a symbol when it can be used without reference to a present, past, or future perceptual instance of a tiger and without the receiver taking such steps as he would if he did perceive a tiger.\nThe difference between symbolicity and displacement comes out clearly if we look at the “language of the bees”Ӷ44Ӻ. In Hockett’s terms, the bees’ signs (“dancing”) always manifest DISPLACEMENT because their messages concern distant locations.Ӷ45Ӻ In my terms, the bees do not qualify for symbolicity because they have never been observed to communicate about distances, directions, food sources etc. without actually coming from, or going to a specific location. \nThe last feature (DF11) that is essential for the characterization of ‘‘language’’ is OPENNESS (or “productivity”). “New linguistic messages are coined freely and easily and, in context, are usually understood.” The technical particular that provides for OPENNESS is, DUALITY OF PATTERNING (DF13), i.e., the fact that the sign system shows “patterning in terms of arbitrary but stable meaningless signal-elements and also patterning in terms of minimum meaningful arrangements of these elements”Ӷ46Ӻ. The first of these two patternings concerns the composition of signals, i.e., the physical sign-vehicles. Hockett would call “language” only those communication systems that use a compositional code in which signals are assembled out of smaller recurrent units (phonemes, cenemes, etc.). This characteristic clearly is of enormous importance if we consider the economy of a coding system. From the evolutionary point of view it constitutes a spectacular advance. It involves the acquisition of special signal-composition mechanisms and, consequently, an increase of operational complexity and memory Space. As a criterion, it would exclude semiotic systems that have no alphabet and use only ideograms. From the communication point of view, this seems an unnecessary restriction. \nThe second type of patterning covered by DUALITY, however, is indispensable as criterion to distinguish linguistic systems from other sign systems. To be considered a “language”, a system must “provide certain patterns by which these elementary significant units (morphemes or meaningful signs can be combined into larger sequences, and conventions governing what sort of meanings emerge from the arrangements. These patterns and conventions are the grammar of the language”Ӷ47Ӻ.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1568062258929°
|
