Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 209):
Working from a functional paradigm we of course have to approach the relation of ‘sign languages’ to one another differently. In essence this means adopting a paradigmatic perspective and formalising their meaning potential as far as possible in system networks specifying the relation of one sign (in Saussure’s sense of the term) to another.
The crucial question we then need to ask is whether meanings combine with one another. …The paralinguistic systems we describe in this volume do combine ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings but apparently without involving syntagmatic relations (i.e. parts configuring as wholes).
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, the Saussurean sign includes both content ('signified') and expression ('signifier'), whereas system networks specify relations within one or the other, e.g. lexicogrammar or phonology. For some of Martin's misunderstandings of Saussure, see:
- Misunderstanding What Saussure Was "Struggling Against"
- Mistaking Saussure's Rejected Model For Saussure's 'Sign' [1]
- Mistaking Saussure's Rejected Model For Saussure's 'Sign' [2]
- Misunderstanding The Saussurean Sign
- The "Non-Privileging" Of Either Level Of Symbolic Abstraction
- Misunderstanding Saussure's Coins Example
- Misunderstanding The Bonding Of Signified And Signifier And The Relation Of Form To Substance
- Seriously Misunderstanding The Sign In Relation To Linguistics And Semiotics
[2] To be clear, this confuses structural relations along the syntagmatic axis (e.g. Pretonic ^ Tonic) with the part-whole relations of the rank scale (e.g. feet (parts) as constituents of a tone group (whole)).
No comments:
Post a Comment