| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Ttsbzjm7q8","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":778,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":2079°Ӻ,"quote":"Maybe it was necessary to follow that narrow path almost to its dead end before one could begin to take to heart Sapir’s admonition that a speech-sound, “even when associated with the particular movements of the ‘speech organs’ that are required to produce it, is very far from being an element of language. It must be further associated with some element or group of elements of experience, say a visual image or a class of visual images or a feeling of relation, before it has even rudimentary linguistic significance”Ӷ4Ӻ. Today we have a rather well-developed theory of communication which should help us to keep apart signals, such as speech-sounds and other transmittable and perceptual items, from the messages or meanings to which they are linked by a given code. From this point of view, then, speech would be a collective term for the vocal signals humans use to transmit messages; the messages, on the other hand, are the meaning or content that is semantically tied to the signals, and it is only when we consider this whole complex of signals, semantic nexus, and meaning, that we should use the term language. As a system of communication, language is not at all restricted to vocal signals but can be implemented by visual or tactual signals (e.g. American Sign Language, Braille, etc.).","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321015953334983404822":^°°,^"jQuery321015953334983404822":^°°,^"jQuery321015953334983404822":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1562149781873°
|
