Lots of people agree that Harris is very good at finding the faults of linguistic theory different from his but is weak on stating the tenets of his theory.
Thats why it needs discussion. But we need to see what he says and not presume his thesis beforehand. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 11:26:41 AM Subject: RE: Signs of Signs of Signs Frances to William and listers... This opinion of mine drifts from the book, but its thrust is feely culled from it. The reason for drifting is to try and sort out the theory and thesis in the book, which has become a difficult read. The author seems vague and evasive in presenting the main features of his ideas. The theory of integration accepts for able linguists any ordinary objects that can be intentionally made into lingual signs, and then insists that linguists merge these preliminary signs together with other available lingual signs within the process of communication to construct an optimum verbal sign for social use as the circumstance demands it. Any ordinary object given to any sense modality may be made as a lingual sign for purposes of integration, such as sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and motions. The language sign therefore is not the only sign held by integration theory as a core source to be made as a lingual sign in the act of communication. Any ordinary sign may be made in mind as a member or part of the lingual class or whole, which finality however must be a full lingual sign. It is those created signs at base that establish each act of communication and the sign of language in any given context, which situation always changes because everything is impacted by continuing time and changing space. The signs of linguistic verbal language are only one form or kind of sign engaged in communication by ordinary linguists for purposes of lingual contact and exchange and accord. Any form or sign emerging in the process of communication may be integrated with any other forms or signs. It is therefore possible that images can be merged with ideas, or pictures can be blended with words, or words can be linked with words; or sounds and tones with words, or strokes and marks with sounds, and so on. All kinds of signs will work together in different ways, because their combine and success is determined by and dependent on the contexts. This approach is not the standard approach to linguistics, as it rejects the supremacy and isolation of the word. The final emerging product of the communicative process is the specific verbal sign as created in linguistic language. These tentative assumptions of mine tend to place the thesis of integration as one doctrine of many methods in the discipline of language and the science of linguistics. The thesis seemingly lacks the rigor and clarity needed to be more than a doctrine.
