Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] On the arbitrary vs. motivated in human communication

2010-04-14 Thread CeJ
I think Saussure missed the point about onomatopoeia. Just because
there are grounds for motivating things that occur commonly across
even unrelated language, it does not mean that if you give a few
counter-examples, the motivation can be dismissed entirely. Instead we
should think of a spectrum that pits the purely arbitrary (impossible,
unless you could conceive of a vocal organ without a body) and purely
motivated (impossible if gesture or symbol is to have any meaning, any
power to represent, other than being itself).

Take for example words like 'crispy', 'crunchy', 'crackly' in English,
and we find counterparts in Japanese like 'kari-kari' and 'saku-saku'.
The common occurence of /k/ sounds (what in traditional phonetic terms
might be described as an unvoiced velar stop, although often this is a
palatalized velar) show a degree of motivation. How? One, this is a
common category of sound in almost all human languages. Two, here it
is being used to imitate the sound of something that is crispy,
crunchy, crackly, kari-kari, etc. So the relationships are more than
just arbitrary, although there is a degree of arbitrariness thrown in
as well--why crispy and not kari-kari in English, etc. But also
Japanese uses a /p/ in 'pari-pari' to mean something very similar.
Does English have anything with /p/s to describe this? Well, the
English word 'crispy' also contains a /p/ and it contains an /s/ , as
does the Japanese 'saku-saku'. So the shared psychology and
phenomenology, however it is set out differently in the
English-language cultural grid vs. the Japanese-language cultural
grid, seems to have something to do with the phonetic and kinesthetic
properties of 'crunchy', which seems to have something to do with our
abilities to imitate those properties using vocal friction, sibilance,
plosiveness and stridency (and all of these words contain a lot of
what the acoustic properties they were chosen to describe).

To give Saussure his due on aribitrariness, he at least deserves a
wiki cite here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics#Arbitrariness

But the picture is actually more complicated, through the integral
notion of 'relative motivation'. Relative motivation refers to the
compositionality of the linguistic system, along the lines of an
immediate constituent analysis. This is to say that, at the level of
langue, hierarchially nested signifiers have relatively determined
signified. An obvious example is in the English number system: That
is, though twenty  and two might be arbitrary representations of a
numerical concept, twenty-two, twenty-three etc. are constrained by
those more arbitrary meanings. The tense of verbs provides another
obvious example: The meaning of "kicked" is relatively motivated by
the meanings of "kick-" and "-ed". But, most simply, this captures the
insight that the value of a syntagm-- a system-level sentence-- is a
function of the value of the signs occurring in it. It is for this
reason that Leonard Bloomfield called the lexicon the set of
fundamental irregularities of the language. (Note how much of the
'meaningfulness' of 'The Jabberwocky' is due to these sorts of
compositional relationships!)

A further issue is onomatopoeia. Saussure recognised that his
opponents could argue that with onomatopoeia there is a direct link
between word and meaning, signifier and signified. However, Saussure
argues that, on closer etymological investigation, onomatopoeic words
can, in fact, be coincidental, evolving from non-onomatopoeic origins.
The example he uses is the French and English onomatopoeic words for a
dog's bark, that is Ouaf Ouaf and Bow Wow.

Finally, Saussure considers interjections and dismisses this obstacle
with much the same argument i.e. the sign / signifier link is less
natural than it initially appears. He invites readers to note the
contrast in pain interjection in French (aie) and English (ouch).

--

CJ



-- 
ELT in Japan
http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/

Japan Higher Education Outlook
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/

We are Feral Cats
http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] On the arbitrary vs. motivated in human communication

2010-04-14 Thread CeJ
Oops, forgot the most interesting part of the discussion, the border collies:

http://www.bordercollierescue.org/advice/Content/UniCommands.html

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] On the arbitrary vs. motivated in human communication

2010-04-14 Thread CeJ
First, sorry CB, I remember now you used the word 'symbolling' , right?
That would avoid the possible confusion using 'symbolizing' might create.

Now about this distinction arbitrary vs. motivated.

Notice how the standard gestures used to work with a border collie
(perhaps the most communicatively responsive of domesticated dogs left
in modern times) are BOTH.

Now I am thinking of the platoon-control signals/gestures we learned
at NCO school in the Army (the material was pretty much dominated by
Infantry in terms of combat arms doctrine, since infantry is
considered to be the most basic body of combat arms knowledge that the
Army and Marine Corps train ALL members in).

I remember the signal/gesture/command that we were supposed to use to
tell everyone in the deployed formation (e.g., troops in a platoon
walking across open ground in a combat posture) to 'CLOSE IT UP'.
Extend both arms at shoulder level and bring them upwards and together
to  form a point/arrowhead. The gesture is arbitrary in the sense that
you could use another gesture to mean the same thing. But it is
motivated in the sense that...well...one would be hardpressed to find
another gesture that was better at giving such a command to a platoon
that was dispersed and moving over open ground. So its conventionality
is to quite an extent determined by the circumstances.

This of course is an extremely artificial example. For one thing, its
underlying meaning depends on being able to communicate in a common
language and using that means to communicate to converge on a common
goal: moving the way the US military says an infantry platoon says you
are supposed to move, obeying commands of your immediate superior,
etc.

In the case of human language, whether spoken or written, at what
levels of language can we find 'motivation' and what levels of
language can we find 'arbitrariness'?

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis