| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Kho5jyhu6v","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ26Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ26Ӻ/supӶ5Ӻ/aӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":4°Ӻ,"quote":"Charles Hockett’s “design features” (DF) are probably the most elaborate scheme to specify the characteristics of human language, and since they have been widely discussed in the literature, I shall use them as points of departure. They originated as a set of 13 descriptive criteria which were to help an observer to recognize “language” when he found it.Ӷ34Ӻ Since they were first shaped in an attempt to characterize spoken human language, they explicitly exclude all communication systems that are not implemented in a VOCAL-AUDITORY CHANNEL (DF1). Other design features \n(DF’s 2, 3, 4, 5, 9) concerning the purely technical aspects of signals, transmission, and reception, strengthen this somewhat anthropocentric restriction. The remaining 7 DF’s, however, focus on characteristics of communication systems in general and they constitute a very valuable approximation to the criteria we should want to use in order to distinguish communication from interaction, and language from signaling systems. The first of these, DF6, is SPECIALIZATION, by which Hockett intends that a sign is constituted, not by the mere energy change that is transmitted (i.e., the physical signal), but by the information or semiotic content the physical signal carries. This point, first formulated by Wiener and later applied to animal communication by Haldane,Ӷ35Ӻ has been accepted, as far as I know, by everyone who has come to investigate communication. It is an indispensable point because it rules out any form of direct mechanical interaction in which the receiver’s reaction (or consequent state) can be thermodynamically accounted for in terms of the amount of energy received. Hockett’s formulation, however, does not help us to discriminate communicatory signs from others that are no more than a perceptual event from which an observer draws an inductive inference (e.g., the sight of smoke, from which he infers the presence of fire; or a thundering sound, from which he infers a stampeding herd and that he had better get out of the way). If such inductive inference is not excluded, “communication becomes a vacuous term. There have been many attempts to patch the leak with subsidiary criteria but none has proven satisfactory.Ӷ36Ӻ It does not seem possible as long as one refuses to consider the basic purposive nature of communicatory signs. Susanne Langer analyzed this problem long agoӶ37Ӻ and the definitions she provided for “natural” and “artificial” signs are applicable to animal communication with only a very minor change.Ӷ38Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°,^"jQuery321084609571877238732":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1568062179427°
|
