Frances to William and listers... If communication is held by the integration theory as extended to the nonlingual and nonhuman realm in some form, then it is by means other than signs, which is all well and good for integration theory; but if what is communicated is deemed to be a sign then that sign for the theory must be only a verbal language sign and as made by a mature human linguist. The theory in fact is held to be one mainly of linguistics, and is concerned only with languages. Furthermore, the theory claims that signs are only language signs, and that signs cannot be nonlingual. This seems to be an accurate read of the theory so far on my part.
-----Original Message----- From: William Conger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 08 February, 2011 5:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Signs of Signs of Signs Frances is completely wrong in her comments below! Harris does not restrict communication to verbal language. It's obvious that Frances does not understand Harris or has not read his books on Integrationist Theory. For Harris, any mode of sign making in a communicative context is actual communication. He gives many examples. ----- Original Message ---- From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 2:13:19 PM Subject: RE: Signs of Signs of Signs Frances to Armando and listers... You asked how the sound of various natural and cultural forms might be communicated, if indeed at all. The origin or cause or source of a heard sound is irrelevant to the "integration" theory of Harris in that any communication and any sign can only occur within the limits of human verbal language. This is an antirealist and nominalist approach to the issue of signs and communications and linguistics. It may nonetheless be useful as a narrow lingual theory within those limits. It however fails as a general or universal theory because it cannot account for all communications and all signs or all of objective reality. Just how this "integration" theory explains the sense of real existent forms that are not interpreted into lingual forms is not yet fully clear to me. s
