Editing Annotation:Text:The Development of Language as Purposive Behavior/H3p81lyft3

{{Innovationsdiskurs2}}
{{TextAnnotation
|AnnotationOf=Text:The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior
|LastModificationDate=2019-07-03T12:28:32.321Z
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"H3p81lyft3","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":778°Ӻ,"quote":"For a considerable time, linguists have implicitly and even explicitly equated “language” with “speech”. They did so quite naturally because “language” had always implied human language, and human language was presumed to have manifested itself in speech long before it found other channels, such as hieroglyphs and alphabets. But there is another, less ingenuous reason. The bulk of linguistic research, having chosen to follow Bloomfield (rather than Sapir) developed a militant disregard for the function of the phenomenon it was studying. Interest was focused on those manifestations that could be called directly observable or physical. Phonology thrived and semantics, the study of meaning, which is at the core of the communicatory function of language, was thwarted.Ӷ3Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321015953334983404822":^°°,^"jQuery321015953334983404822":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Innovationsdiskurs2","data_creacio":1562149711540°
}}
{{Innovationstyp
|field_text_autocomplete=Missverständnisse aufzeigen
}}