Frances to William... (1) Thanks for clarifying the lack of any "global" context for integrationism. It does however seem unnecessary to deny that familiar contexts might be similar to a degree. In any event, it therefore seems that there are no generals or classes admitted in the thesis to consider. Whether that lack of "fixed" kinds and "firm" types might be detrimental to the thesis remains to be found in my readings of its literature. (2) In regard to solipsism, two or more persons would not necessarily negate the solipsism, because a whole nation for example might be prone to its subjective effect. In any event, it will be accepted that integrationism is not solipsist, due to its communal communicative requirement. (3) This communal need however raises a further issue to address, which is whether a single individual alone can silently and privately communicate to themselves alone in thought using their own verbal language, and if this sort of singular or peculiar situation might nonetheless satisfy the requirements of integrationism for linguistics and languages. In other words, the sole communicating linguist in their own mental context alone would be their own expediting maker or giver, and their own receiving getter or taker, of their own stated messages formed as mental constructs. (4) In regard to universal signs that might occur in signages or languages, they may indeed exist across cultural and social boundaries or contexts, if the scientific findings at least in zoology and ethology and anthropology are to be accepted.
William wrote... Frances; No universal or global contexts in integrationist linguistics. It's not solipsist because in communication, two people at least are involved. Further, there is recognition of social practices but even these need to be contextualized in each case. No fixed meanings for words. No fixed contexts. Frances wrote... Are any situational "contexts" of communication held by integrationism to be global in either the general or universal sense, for say purposes of theoretical prediction on the part of linguists? This is an unknown factor for me, but may be revealed in my further readings of the literature. If the thesis denies to "contexts" any globalization, then it seemingly allows for no globalization whatsoever, and thus the subjective nominal reality of integrationism would be hopelessly solipsist. William wrote... It needs a context to have meaning. The whistle sound itself could be used to call your dog, or in imitating a bird call or be a coded signal for an ambush, etc. It doesn't mean anything specific until a context is established. When a pretty girl walks past the construction workers, the usual trope, that whistle means she's pretty. Or it could mean something more banal, or something lewd, or be ironic (if she's not pretty or is an effeminate fellow, etc.). There's no universal meaning inherent to anything at all. All meanings are projected and they need to be contextualized by a number of factors. A whistle is not a sign until it's created as one in a context. It's just a sound...if anyone hears it. Armando wrote... Does a whistle at a girl sound, convey any a meaning universally?
