Language and Langauge Based Codes

7/24/2019 Language and Langauge Based Codes

1/15

Language and Language-based Codes

Language and Language-basedCodes

A Seminar in Semiotics2013

1


2/15


Language and Language - based codes

Verbal Communication

Language in a semiotic frame: The aim is to investigatelanguage in relation to semiotics. This in turn, leads to thequestion of the scope of linguistics. Explicitly semiotic approachesto language aim at extending the scope of linguistics in order toaccount for the relation between language and other sign systems.

The relation between linguistics and semiotics is mutuallyexclusive, one part-whole relationship, one of interpretation, andone of heuristic (investigative relevance.

The former relation, (mutually exclusive is the least bene!cial.

Semiotics as a Part of Linguistics:"arthes and also #$elmslev both provocatively proposed a theoryof semiotics as a branch of linguistics .%n this view& linguistics isextended to include the level of the text i.e. semiotics is reducedto the study of textual structures only. #$elmslev argues that'language is a semiotic into which all other semiotics may betranslated. #owever, it should be mentioned here that #$elmslevin this context, he referred to semiotic systems in general rather

than natural languages, but this view has been re$ected from thepoint of view of general semiotics.

Perspective Interpretation:%f semiotics is accepted as the general theory of signs, suchtheoretical perspective can be applied to every !eld of language.#owever, core !elds of linguistics such as morphology, lexicologyand syntax have a tradition which is largely independent ofgeneral semiotics. "ut there are !elds which are naturallydependent on semiotics and require semiotic extension& these!elds are semantics and pragmatics.

Linguistics as the Piot Science of Semiotics%t has been argues that )inguistics as a discipline has a higherdegree of development than semiotics and therefore need to be

*


3/15


used as a guideline in the more recent !eld of semiotics. Thosewho follow this perspective are+ Saussure, he deems language as the patron general for thestudy of other sign systems.

!oom"ed represents the view that linguistics is the chiefcontributor to semioticeinreich refers to natural language as the / semioticphenomenon par excellence.0tructurally# !enveniste states threeaspects in which languagecontributes to semiotic+Generative relationship, i.e. language generates other semioticsign systems.Homology (isomorphism)Interpretance (i.e. language is the interpreting system of all

other semiotic systems.

Semiotic $%tensions of LinguisticsThis topic includes foundations for the extension of traditionallinguistics as a semiotic approach to language, it includes sevencategories+

- Semiotics as the theor& of anguage (In traditional logicsemiotic is a philosophical theory of language).

- Sign theoretica foundations of anguage (semiotic

linguistics is concerned with the structure of the languagesign).

- 'he pragmatic frame(or) of inguistics (i.e. relatingsigns to their interpreters).

- 'he te%t semiotic e%tensions of Linguistics(the semioticapproach to language begins with text semiotics).

- 'he cutura frame(or) of anguage (extending thestudy to include the cultural framework).

- 'he stud& of *onvoca anguages (extension from vocalto Nonvocal languages as a major concern in semioticlinguistics).

- Semiogenesis and Language (study of the evolutionaryroots of language).

Semioticians in Linguistics and Linguists in Semiotics:


4/15


2ierce is considered as the ma$or !gure in semiotics whose wor3 isin4uential in linguistics. 0aussure, on the other hand, along with#$elmslev, 5a3obson and 6arl "uhler, their wor3s are consideredsemiotic. #alliday and 0haumyan have proposed a semiotic

approach to language. 7or #alliday, his studies aresociosemiotici.e. language is a product of a social process.0haumyan proposes ! "emiotic #heory of $anguage usingapplicative 8niversal 9rammar.

+esign ,eatures +,. of Language: 0emiotics draws theattention of linguists to the new frontier of a theory capable ofexplaining the characteristics of human language. 0everalattempts have been made to achieve this goal by contrastinghuman language with nonlinguistic semiotic systems. The most

in4uential proposal in this context is #oc3ett/s list of designfeatures. /oc)ett developed a list of 1: design features oflanguage, by comparing languages with communicative systemsof various animal species& #e divided these features according totheir semiotic features+

+,s eating to the Channe+, 1+ %ocal&!uditory 'hannel+ )anguage is produced by means ofthe vocal tract. The signals are received through the ears.+, 2+ roadcast #ransmission and irectional *eception+ 0oundmoves in all directions from its source and can pass aroundobstacles. The receiver is able tolocate the direction of the source of speech.+, 3+ *apid +ading+ 0po3en signals vanish quic3ly, leaving thechannel free for further messages.

+,s of the Pragmatic +imension+, + Interchangeability.;dult members of a speech communitycan be both senders and receivers of messages.

+, + 'omplete +eedback. The spea3er can hear immediately, andthus monitor by feedbac3, his or her own message. Together with


5/15


e?ort, and its energetic consequences are biologically irrelevant.The spea3er is free to perform other activities while spea3ing.+,s of the Semantic +imension

+, 4: "emanticity. %n his view, human language is a semantic

system of communication because its elements have associativeties with things and situations, or types of things and situations, inthe environment of its users.+, 5:!rbitrariness. The signal - ob$ect relationship is arbitrary andnot iconic.+, 6+ isplacement. The language sign can refer to ob$ectsremote in time and space.+, 10+ -revarication. e can say things that are false ormeaningless. Eco considers this feature to be characteristic of

semiosis in general.+, 11: *eexiveness. )anguage can be used to communicateabout language. This is 5a3obson/s metalinguistic function.Semiogenetic ,eatures

+, 12+ #radition.The conventions of language are passed downby teaching and learning, not through the germ plasm. )anguageis thus acquired by culture, not bynature.+, 13+ $earnability. The spea3er of one language can learn

another language.Characteristics of the Code

+, 1+ iscreteness. The sign repertoire consists of discrete andrecurrent units. There is no gradation of linguistic elements interms of more or less. The units oflanguage are not continuous.+, 1+ -roductivity or /penness+ @ew linguistic messages arecoined freely and easily, and, in context, are usually understood.2roductivity is primarily due to the

syntax of language. @ew messages are generated by the creativecombination of linguistic signs.+, 1+ uality of -atterning. This is the feature whichsemioticians, following Aartinet (1B=B, also refer to by the termdouble articulation. The discussion of this 3ey concept of

C


6/15


linguistics and the semiotic theory of codes requires a separateparagraph (see =.1.

Df the previous 1:


7/15


- "eing a system.=- )inearity.(unli3e visual communicationC-


8/15


;s sign repertoires, codes consist of a homogenous and closed setof unambiguous symbols. )anguage however, is an open systemof semantically 4exible signs. To overcome these implications,

5acobson have introduced two modi!cations of the concept of code

in linguistics. #e proposed the


9/15


hitney who states an internal and necessary tie between theword and idea is absolutely non1existent for the learner2. #owever,0aussure warned that the choice of the signi!er is not left entirelyto the spea3er. ;rbitrariness is not freedom of choice, but it means

the unmotivated nature of the sign. %n the 0aussurean concept,arbitrariness indicates also the conventionality of the languagesystem (the community is essential in the existence andacceptance of signs.;gainst this principle, "enveniste postulates the principle ofnecessityof the linguistic sign& it depends on the psychologicalassociation between the two sides of the linguistic sign.

Arbitrariness: Relation of Sense or Reference%n 0aussurean principle, arbitrariness is a matter of sense only,

i.e. the relationship between the signi!er and the signi!ed.;rbitrariness in the Triadic Aodel of the sign is necessarilyreferential. if the signi!er is arbitrary with respect to the referentand if the signi!ed is necessarily lin3ed to the signi!er , thesigni!ed must also be considered arbitrary.

Absolute vs! Relative Arbitrariness: %n0aussure terms, wordssuch as ten, sheep, or apple exhibit absolute arbitrariness, whilecompound words such as !fteen, shepherd, or apple tree are

examples of relative arbitrariness. "esides, all rules of grammarrestrict arbitrariness and introduce motivation into the system oflanguage.

+egrees of Arbitrariness+ 2eirce classi!ed signs with respect totheir referential dimension into+ Signs

%con %ndex0ymbol

B

A conventiona sign#

characteried b&

highest degree of

arbitrariness# i)e

natura signs e%ations only.;lthough dedicated to non-verbal communication, yet,2aralanguage is not concerned with gestures for examples

because gestures convey messages independent of language."aralanguage is communication that occurs with verbalmessages. "aralinguistic messages are supra-segmental andthus not inherent in the words. 7rom a linguistic point of view, theborderline between linguistics and para-linguistics is expressed asfollows+

1G


11/15

)inguistics

paralanguistics

0emiotics


#istorically, and from a purely semiotic point of view,paralanguage was one of the steps in the extension of structurallinguistics toward a semiotic theory of human communication.Kauch locates para-linguistics between linguistics and semiotics,

since it is concerned with indexical signs.

?ritingriting has been neglected in language studies, except for itshistorical dimension. ithin a semiotic framewor3, writing hasfurther dimensions of interest to philosophy, cultural anthropology,and mass media.;s an evolutionary process, there are two basic options for thedevelopment of writing systems these can be best exempli!ed asfollows+

11


12/15

9rapheme

0emantic 8nit(sememograp

hic

2ictograph

%deograph

logograph

2honetic 8nit

(2honemographic

2honeme or0yllable


%n #$elmslevs terminology, the semantic unit is "leremicwriting while the phonetic unit is Cenemicone.

+e"ning ,eatures of Spo)en and ?ritten Language

Spo)en ?ritten8ses vocal-auditory channel 8ses visual channel ( fails in the

dar3

"roadcast transmission ed in thetreatment of content.

#ighly speciali>ed, requireshigher energetic e?ort, morefreedom in editing and revising.

Kapid fading 2ermanent recording andinformation storage.

%n addition to the communicative function which is shared bythe spo3en mode, writing, as a semiotic mode, serves thefollowing+

1*


13/15


Semiotic ,unction of ?riting

Aagic 7unction2oetic function

?riting and Speech: Autonom& vs< /eteronom&: Thequestion of whether the grapheme is a sign or not depends heavilyon the autonomy or heteronomy of writing. Therefore, for thosewho follow the autonomous view, written segments the si>e of aword or morpheme are signs of writing. hile a heteronomousview considers the single letter as having the status of a signwhich refers to a phoneme. The primacy of writing over spo3enmode has been dealt with in terms of "hono#centrism orGrapho#centrism!

@niversa anguage @Ls.: To overcome the shortcomings oflinguistic features of arbitrariness and tradition, hundreds of8niversal )anguages have been proposed or developed during thehistory of semiotics. The roots of semiotic dimensions for 8)s aresimpli!ed below+

Semiotic +imensions of @Ls

7&thoogica Language $voutionPragmatics

1

Li)e caigraph mar)ed

etter forms in

architecture and

aesthetics

Secret and magic forms

of (riting i)e

/ierog&phic (riting and

sacred carvings

Language and Langauge Based Codes

Documents

Transcript of Language and Langauge Based Codes