Organizing and describing the colloquy topic (for example, for the summer “flyer” advertising the colloquy season and for website pages describing the colloquy).The colloquy facilitator is responsible for: As you will note from the lists elsewhere on this site, the range of past topics is quite broad and we continue to look for topics in new areas to expand the colloquies’ appeal. We seek to offer colloquies that will be of interest to participants and which can be led by a suitable facilitator. In addition to the more detailed document linked above, the following will give you some of the highlights of leading a colloquy: Colloquy Topics We want to explore if and how structural linguistics as glossematics (in the sense of Hjelmslev) can be extended towards an alphabet of things that were capable of integrating the operability of generative linguistics (Chomsky etc), and hence could provide a powerful method of pre-specific modeling.While Colloquy Downeast vets and organizes colloquy topics (together with venues, advertising, etc.), the key to every colloquy’s success is the colloquy “ facilitator.” In this kolloquium we will work through Hjelmselv‘s Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1943), and appropriate it methods in practice. Here, Hjelmslev‘s algebraic approach offers a powerful alternative to the pre-dominant approaches in terms of semantic or object-oriented (informational) database logic and ontologies, because it is capable of abstracting from the distinction between natural language vs artifical/formal language and needs not subject one to the other: communication and signification can be treated as mutually complementary aspects. Yet with regard to the logistic networks, such fixation is (arguably) neither necessary nor desireable. From the logical point of view, this can hardly count as a forward pointing path, since it does not clarify how a notion of system could be objectified. Like this, the structuralist paradigm is open for taking probabilistic procedures like Markov Chains and other algorithms, with which the diverse programming languages ordinarily work today, into account. He considered Saussure‘s ,negative values‘ in a generalized sense as ,algebraic invariants‘. Louis Hjelmslev is one of the very few linguists who continued the „differentiability within negativity“ approach initiated by de Saussure, by extending it mathematically. Surely the post-structuralist critiques on such a notion of general linguistics are well known yet from the point of view of algebraic computability (rather than that of logics), the situation looks different and is hardly explored today.
This is the decisive reason why de Saussure himself considered his own structural approach, which attempted to conceive of language as a system, as having ultimately failed. In short, a linguistic sign can only be determined structurally and differentially, within a framework of place-value distributions.įrom a logical point of view, de Saussure‘s paradigm of negative determination obviously entails problems regarding methodological feasibility, since it holds, by principle, that the necessary infinitary lists can never exhaustively be made explicit.
As a negative value, it can only be specified by „profiling“ it through infinitary lists and their net of contrasts: a ,this‘ can never be signified directly, Saussure held, but only by labelling it as ,not-that‘ and not-that‘ and ,not-that‘ etc. Ferdinand de Saussure‘s structuralist paradigm for understanding processes of signification views the linguistic sign as a quantitative value, yet as a negative one which cannot, in itself, be positivized. Yet since the founding documents of a general linguistics in the late 19th century, it is clear for every linguist who affirms the break with the traditional way of studying language as philology, that the notion of the sign is to be treated purely quantitatively as well. Since Claude Shannon‘s Mathematical Theory of Communication (1936), the notion of information in its technically treatable sense is often distinguished from its linguistic sense by ascribing to the former, as opposed to the latter, a purely quantitative treatment.
0 kommentar(er)
