Do you WIki?

I was thinking Wikipedia is kind of a weird format to use being as it can be changed by anyone. Makes me wonder if we can count on its accuracy on the information we take away from it

Read more!

The Analytical Language of John Wilkins

To begin, I can’t say that I fully comprehend this piece on The Analytical Language of John Wilkins by Jorge Luis Borges. Reading the article I could only understand bits and pieces of paragraphs, nothing as a whole, no matter how many times I read it.
My understanding of the reading is that language is more confusing and deeper than I am aware of in fact, most of us are aware of. It is a whole other learning experience and seems difficult to decipher, it’s like a code.

I understand to some extent the 40 categories that are subdivided twice i.e. as used in the article:
Category (monosyllable of 2 letters) de which translates to element
Then Category Boken Down to
Difference (consonant) deb translates to fire
Then Broken Down to
Species (vowel) deba translates to flame
However Letellier doesn’t follow the monosyllable of 2 letters, why?

The article seemed to jump around too much making it confusing as if there were 3 or 4 difference writers putting this piece of writing together….it didn’t flow to me, just confused me.
Again, the numbering was a puzzle as well.
Salmon doesn’t tell a man anything if he uses the 40 categories as Zana means nothing to me.
At the end, the Recipes = Confusion
I will have to keep reading until something else clicks. If anyone can give me a lead, please do.

Read more!

What is Wilkins trying to say?

After reading through the Wilkins article for the third time I'm still having a very difficult time trying to understand the basis of what this guy is saying. Ok, I understand (somewhat) the idea behind the categories of classes, the monosyllables and the consonants, but it seems he does not stick to one topic when he is discussing Wilkins' "analytical language". For example, Borges is discussing Wilkins' four-level table, then he mentions the eighth and the sixteenth categories, what happened to the idea of the four-level table? Did they leave it back at the bus shelter or what? Then Borges goes on to make the statement "Beauty belongs to the sixteenth category; it is a living brood fish, an oblong one". What in Gods name does that mean? "A living brood fish, an oblong one"? What is meant by that? It appears to be just some nonsense rant, any ideas anyone? Also those recepies at the end of the article? yeah, no clue whatsoever.

Read more!

Rhetoric and Logic Reading

Wow!!! Both of the readings were quite interesting. I really enjoyed them both.

I have to agree with my peers that the reading of Rhetoric and Logic has a connection as to you need the logic to understand any statements, problem solving, or to even converse. I will have to admit that I am one of those who sees the "up to 50% off" advertisments in the paper or even walking in the shopping centre and think what a great deal and also sometimes I convince myself that it's a great deal when really, logically, it's not.

Read more!

Essential Logic

I think that rhetoric and logic can be connected in many ways. They are connected in the sense that they both represent techniques and ways for persuading speech - Rhetoric uses public speech to bring the listener in and make them believe in what is being said. Logic is quite similiar, as it also uses many techniques to validate, and make more sound "true" statements. Similarily philosophers believed that rhetoric was essetial to discovering truth and clarifying arguements. Logic can be viewed in this way as well - it is used to discover fallacies, clarify true statements and therefore be sound. However, I think the difference between the two is that Logic is more of a defensive tool to use to figure out persuasive agruments and help get to the truth. Whereas rhetoric is more the method and practice of "tricking" and being persuasive.

Read more!

Essential Logic

After reading this weeks reading I found it a much easier read than previous ones we've done. The word usage was just a little more practical, it was alot easier to understand. Also, the concept of Logic was easier to understand as opposed to something like linguistic structure. It was also more helpful in that the concepts of Logic and rhetoric worked together in a clearer way then say Relativism and saussures' concpets. The two concpets (rhetoric,logic) work together in that logic helps us from being persuaded by rhetoric in say an advertisement or in a discussion with friends. If we did not have our own logic I think we would be in a difficult spot when it came to making difficult decesions, being persuaded towards things we don't necessarily agree with.

Read more!

Logic reading

wow, that was a long read. but it was definetly jam-packed with a lot of information. i want to start off by commenting on the opening quote; "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln" I love this quote. i've heard it before and i think its awesome.
After reading through the article i came to the conclusion that thought does not have law. "In logic there is no such thing as a "valid premise" or a "true argument." Sometimes we do say that a conclusion is valid; then we mean that the conclusion follows validly from the premises." i believe this statement is saying that in thought (logic) there is no rite or wrong answer, and if something does not have a right or wrong answer then therefore it can not have laws to follow. if there WERE laws to follow then there would be a wrong answer (if it broke a law) and a rite answer (if it followed the law). i would also like to comment on the "As individuals we are up against an enormous external power pounding on our doors daily. Billions of dollars are spent on commercial and political advertising every year." I completely agree wtih this statement, and it has been discussed in my tutorial group as well. i don't think that we will ever get away from all the advertisement that we come in contact with everyday constantly. I think that it will just get worse.

Read more!

rhetorics and logic

My understanding of rhetorics and logic, after reading the articles is that they are similar in that they both deal with persuasive speach but I think that they are completely opposite. I hope that I am on the right track but what I got from the articles is that rhetorics is a way of being persuasive in speach eg. politics, advertising, etc... and logic is a way of recognising persuasive speach. I think that this is the relationship between the two. Rhetorics first uses a logical phrase and the changes the words, using the same phrase to make it more persuasive for whatever purpose. Logic is a way of looking at a rhetorical phrase and picking it a part to figure out what it actually means, not what one may be initially tricked into thinking it means. I think that defining logic as "The Laws Of Thought" is a little too much. I think that it may be an area of thought but not every thought one has is logical and some thoughts don't have anything to do with logic.

Read more!

I was on vacation last class therefore missed the tutorial. Can anyone please let me know the readings that are due for next class besides the link that Mr. Morse just emailed us and if there are any essays due. Much appreciated, Nichole.

Read more!

This week's reading:

Folks,

Apparently some folks have had trouble getting to the website for this week's reading. Try clicking this link, or cutting & pasting it:

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Book2/chap1EL-2.htm

Cheers & Best,

Michael

Read more!

Rhetoric

I had no idea that rhetoric was a subject that was studied and taught so much. Rhetoric as a discipline has such a long history. I really just thought it meant persuasive speech. Rhetoric isn't something I am aware of although it is persistently present in media. Advertising and marketing use rhetoric to persuade us to buy the latest video game, lipgloss or car. You can also see it political debates each politician trying to get you to see their platform through persuasion. Speech writers probably know what language and words to use that will appeal to the common audience. I don't know if I'm on the right track but this is what I took from the article.

Read more!

Rhetoric

My understanding after reading this article is that rhetoric is simply the technique of persuasion. I was most interested in the Sophists and their claim of being able to teach human "excellence" through public speech. In addition, I also found it interesting that Plato believed the Sophists simply flattered their audiences with claims they wanted to hear rather then what is actually true. After reading these few points, today's media immediatly came to mind. It seems that presently the media acts as the "rhetor" by using public displays for persuasion -- Telling audiences what they want to hear. This was just a thought, it might be way off as I like other classmates have found these artciles to be quite complex and difficult to follow.

Read more!

Rhetoric

I like Plato's opinion of Rhetoric/Sophistics if I am undertanding it correctly. I think what he believed was that Sophists were the types to "say what people wanted to hear, not what was true". I just can't believe that Socrates, his teacher, was sentanced to death for being accused of this. Even if the accusations were true, why was he at fault when anyone in his audience had the choice of forming their own views/opinions on whatever the topic of discussion was. Imagine what Plato or some of the others of that time would think of politicians today!

Read more!

Rhetoric Article

I read some posts by other classmates and found they had the same mind frame as me, that they found this article really dry and boring. I found it intersting in the beginning but as it went on it got more and more 'blah'. There is one part that caught my eye, under Ancient Greece it stated "for modern students today, it can be diffiucult to remember that the wide use and availability of written texts is a phenomenon that was just coming into vogue in Classical Greece. In Classical times, many of the great thinkers spoke thier words; in fact, many of them are known only through the texts that their students and followers wrote down." I couldn't imagine attempting to complete ANY assignments without countless written texts to get information from. It's cool to see how times have changed, I wonder how students coped not being able to have information to look off of?

Read more!

Rhetoric

After reading the article in the Kit on Rhetoric, I came to the conclusion that it just said the same thing over and over again for 7 pages. The only important point that was put across was the definition of Rhetoric, which could have been done in one paragraph instead of 7 pages! The idea that I came away from it with is that Rhetoric is using words in an effective manner, so as to persuade the listener.
This is the 3rd or 4th wikipedia article we've read so far in class, and I'm not sure that I like them. I feel like the articles jump all over the place, from author to author, but in the end, they all end up saying the same things.
Maybe I'm way off on this. If I am, could someone let me know! I don't want to go through the rest of the year being confused by these articles! hahaha

Read more!

Analytical Language of John Wilkins

As you all are aware we were to read the 4th article of the kit entitled "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins". After reading this article I found that alot of the terms created by Wilkins in his new language made really no sense at all. Although there appeared to be similarities between his new words such as "imafo" for pesthouse and "imari" for house, they were still very difficult to comprehend. But then again I guess thats the case with any new language you attempt to learn, all the words probably seem very foregin to the learner because the have never seen them before. However what struck me as the most peculiar were the recipies at the end of the article from the "Nonsense Gazette, for August, 1870". I'm not ashamed to say I have no idea whatsoever as to how these recipies are linked to the rest of the article. hahaha I'm sure the fact that I had trouble getting through the article in the first place contributes to my non-understanding but any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Read more!

Saussure and Concept

YOU ARE RAEDING TIHS AND UDNERSTNADNIG WAHT IS WRTTIEN EEVNTHUOGH THE LTETERS ARE ALL MXIED UP. DO YOU KNOW WHY THIS IS PSSOBILE? I BEILVEE IT IS BSAED ON SUSASRUE’S THOERY ON CONCPETS. WE UNEDRSTNAD WAHT IS WRTTIEN HREE AS LNOG AS THE FRIST AND THE LSAT LTETERS ARE IN THE CRROECT PALCE OF A WROD. TIHS IS BECUASE OUR BARIN DEOS THE SAME THING WEHN WE HAER WRODS BIENIG SPOEKN AND AS WE INTREPERT MAENING .

INSTAED OF LTETERS, WE CONVRET THE SYALLBES OF THE WRODS ITNO CONCPETS. BSAED ON SUSASRUE’S ATRCILE, THORUGH SYTNHSEIS WE UNEDRSTNAD BECAUSE SINGALS ARE TRUNED ITNO INTREPERATTIONS. THE MAENING IS BSAED ON THE MAOJRITY’S AGEERMNET. LKIE SPKOEN WRODS, WE ARE ALBE TO CONVRET THSEE MXIED UP WIRTTEN WRODS IN OUR MNID TO MAKE THE CORERCT WORD IN ODRER TO INTREPERT MAENING.

TRANSLATION:
You are reading this and understanading what is written eventhough the letters are all mixed up. Do you know why this is possible? I believe it is based on Saussure’s theory on concepts. We understand what is written here as long as the first and the last letters are in the correct place of a word. This is because our brain does the same thing when we hear words being spoken and as we interpret meaning.

Instead of letters, we convert the syllables of the words into concepts. Based on Saussure’s article, through synthesis we understand because signals are turned into interpretations. The meaning is based on the majority’s agreement. Like spoken words, we are able to convert these mixed up written words in our mind to make the correct word in order to interpret meaning.

Read more!

The Object of Study article

I found The Object of Study article a little hard to get into. To be honest, I thought it was rather boring and because of this, I found it hard to concentrate when reading it. I understand that it is hard to study language because there are too many approaches that can be taken. I also understand the concept that one has know way of knowing, when talking to another person, whether or not what one is saying is being interpereted by the other person in the way that one wants it to be. I just thought that the article went on and on and eventually I lost interest. I did not have this problem with the relativism article. I thought it was more interesting and because of this I found it easier to read.

Read more!

Thoughts on rhetoric

Basically my understanding of rhetoric's is that rhetoric’s is means of conveying the message in a nice way, and then dialectic thought is used for analyzing the message that was conveyed to decide if it is a true or a false rhetoric. In our day rhetorics regarded by many as something negative because it is a very effective way to lie if a person listening is not really analyzing what you are saying. Using rhetoric makes something "sound true" even though it doesnt necesseraly have to be true. But on the other hand rhetorics or the art of speech is used everyday by any good salesmen and buisness men. An excellent example of a man who is very good at rhetorical speaches is the movie "Thank you for smoking". This movie is about a man who is a speaker for the cigarette companies. He is one of the best, as cigarettes are a hard product to sell, advertise and most of all defend in public against all the health critics. My favourite quote from this movie and goes something like " it doesnt matter what you are trying to prove, as long as you construct your argument correctly you are going to be right." and this is displayed throughout the movie how he defends cigarettes by telling people how its in their librety to smoke, and it is their decission, cigarette companies are only there to provide a service. Anyways I dont want to give away too much detail, because it is a very interesting movie to watch, and it relates alot to rhetoric's.

Read more!

The Nature of the Linguistic Sign

I don't know if I am understanding the article correctly but it continually refers to language and sign as being arbitrary. Which I think would mean that language is chosen at random? I don't think that it means that we just wake up one day and chose to call a tree a car, but rather that as language evolves it changes, subtly. There are many examples of words that are derived from Latin or Greek to mean one thing but in English mean something entirely different. An example in the text is the Latin word "necare" meaning "to Kill" but the French version is "noyer" which means "to drown". (pg. 10) Changes in language can occur in translation, but I guess also through time and pop culture our language and they way we use words can change from one generation to the next. My grandfather years ago complaint to me that the paperboy said his house looked "sick". My grandfather was confused but took it as something negative, some kind of weird insult. I told him it was a compliment. How can one word mean two totally different things?

Oh and just for kicks I looked up sick at www.urbandictionary.com and this is the first definition:


1.
sick

1)crazy, cool, insane 2)what one is on a test day
1)man, that trick was sick yo 2)i played sick on my big bio test day

A little outdated but still funny.

Read more!

Object of Study

Ok one more......sorry.

In the intro pg 2 it reads "it has not been established that the function of lanugage....is entirely natural...it is not clear that our vocal apparatus is made for speaking as our legs for walking".

How do they know that legs were meant for walking? How do they know that our vocal apparatus wasn't made for its use today? What would it be used for, if not to make sounds? Were we all suppose to be mute?

Read more!

Object of Study

Just a quick comment on the reading.

I find it mind boggling (now who came up with that phrase) just reading about the history of words and sentences etc. I never actually thought to go that deep into understanding linguistics, I only ever understood that the english language was derived from latin. Just thinking, who ever came up with the word "tree" and why is it the tall thing outside with leaves and not something with wheels? Or why is the word 'd-o-g' read that way? Even 't-h-r-e-e' is a number, why not have the 'h' silent like in other words......then it 's pronounced "tree' the tall thing outside with leaves.

What a thinker!

Enough of my babbling thoughts..what are yours?

Read more!

comment on pg 65-78, Jackals and Arabs

I'm not sure if we are supposed to comment on the story(s) that we were told to read (page 65-78) but I found that the most interesting out of all the readings we were told to read for the next class so I thought I'd comment on it.
I think this story and these translations are an awesome example of how different cultures, perspectives, and education have an affect on the way that someone can communicate their story across to another. In the first 'story' it is very short and it seems like it is just a bunch of points put together to get the main idea across. As the story is written numerous times it progresses and more detail is added and some is taken out. As I read the story numerous times I got a better understanding of what was going on, the first time I read it it left me kind of confused.
In the 'to build a fire' story the same thing occured but in the second writing of the story more detail was added and it was longer than the first one. (I found this story more interesting due to the gruesome details of the affect the weather had on his skin in particular). Another prime example of different ways people can communicate their ideas across.

Read more!

Objective of Study

This message is in regards to Matthew’s thoughts on the quote “the faculty of articulating words is put to use only by means of the linguistic instrument created and provided by society”.

I also thought that was an interesting quote and a good assessment of it, Matt. I believe that we humans would come up with an alternate method to communicate. Think how babies communicate. They usually pick-up sign language quicker than verbal words or they grunt and point to what they want, like cave men shall I say. However, like the tree falling in the woods and making a sound when no one is around to hear, it is impossible to know the unknown.

Read more!

Saussure: Concept and Sound Pattern.

In reference to General Principles, CP page 6.

Saussure explains that a linguistic sign is based on a concept and a sound pattern. His definition of a sound pattern is "the hearer's psychological impression of a sound" (CP, pg 6). Hence, a linguistic sign is based on the abstract ideal or mental symbol based on the sound pattern. This is why we can share the same understanding of a linguistic sign with someone who pronounces words differently. For example, my mother speaks with a strong accent. When she pronounces the word itinery, she says IT-TIN-ERY, when it should be I-TIN-ERY, however it can still be understood. Why is this? According to Saussure, sound pattern is not a sound, it is a "material" used to represent our sensory impressions. Thus, whether it is pronounced IT-TIN - ERY or I-TIN-ERY the sounds arranged by these letter are limited, and thus the concept of the word is shared and can be understood by both participants. The same thing happens when we read silenly. We intrepret the sound pattern mentally, although we do not hear it physically, in order to understand the concept. We know how the letters arranged are suppose to sound.

Read more!

Michael's Notes on Saussure

Dear Folks, 
  As my first contribution to the blog, I'm posting my notes on Saussure. 
This is one of the hardest texts we'll read all year, so I thought these notes might be helpful.

Cheers,

Michael

Saussure NOTES

Intro Chapter III §1

- What linguistics studies is not self-evident, because each and every word does not just mean different things, but is different things: an idea, a sound, an element of history

- At first glance, the question “what is a word?” must be answered: it depends

- Speech sounds are not independent of thoughts; in that sense, they are not “things”

- Language is always both individual and social; these two aspects are inseparable from each other

- Language always involves both a present and a past; language does not have a history “and” a present usage; these two are also inseparable; linguistic history is always being made; it is made every time someone speaks the language

- Solution to dilemma is to study linguistic structure: a “social product of our language faculty”; a body of conventions adopted by society to use the language faculty; the principle of order to all the different aspects of language;

- It is not clear whether language is a natural function of the vocal apparatus; it is clear that no one language is more natural than another

- [Key term:] Articulation, the division of sound into discrete syllables, words, sentences; essential to the process of making meaning; we make sense of the whole (whatever idea is expressed) by making sense of the parts, and understanding their relation to each other; one essential definition, though not the only one: language is articulated sound

§2

- in order to express concepts (or ideas), an individual speech act requires a circuit between two people, involving both (articulated) speaking and (comprehending) listening

- the physiological and psychological facts are also part of a social phenomenon: the words used to express concepts are the same between the members of the language-speaking group [“wonderful!” is used in all kinds of ways—but not to describe a toothache, except sarcastically; no one uses the expression “dirt path” to describe Highway 401, again unless they’re kidding]; the shared words are symptoms of a shared concept, which in turn becomes a shared word, used to express the shared concept; words and language are where we express our agreement and shared experience; none of us call Highway 401 a “dirt road” because that isn’t the way any of us experience it; hence we use “the same signs linked to the same concepts”

- read FdS p 30, right hand column: the totality of stored impressions is the totality of (and called) language

- language is the totality of shared impressions and concepts, independent of (or beyond) the individual utterances and speech acts of individuals, which Saussure calls speech [which includes written speech acts]

[more on language structure:]

1. It is external to the individual, who is powerless to control it; if you want to say ‘sheep’ and mean ‘car,’ no one will understand you; more importantly, no one will follow your example; it will be even worse if you start to say “the” three or four times before every word; the convention is to say “the” just once, and it will be impossible for you to change it

2. Language struucure can be studied independently, both of individual speech acts, and of specific historical conditions; in other words, no one individual or situation defines a language, and its structure can be studied independent of them all, even if it is no longer spoken

3./4. Structure is sufficiently consistent and tangible that it can be studied, because even though the patterns formed by all the speech acts are very diverse, they are coherent enough that they can be studied like objects; a linguist can study words, just as an astronomer studies stars and constellations, or a geologist studies mountains and rocks

§3



- A [particular] language has a key role in social life; “language” (in general) does not; the language capacity of human beings is an abstraction; we cannot point out or explain exactly what it is, but only look to the way it is used in particular cases

- There are two kinds of particular case: individual speech acts, and the social totality of these acts, the structure of them all, which is English as opposed to French, as opposed to German

- Language is an abstraction; what I am saying right now is concrete, and so is the English language



Part ONE Chapter I §1 – how linguistic signs actually work

- if we assume that words (simply) represent things, then we assume that concepts are independent of words, because ideas already exist, and language simply comes along and provides names or labels for what we already understand

- linguistic signs link concepts and sound patterns – not brain waves and objects, but experiences (sound pattern and concepts are both ‘experiences’)

- sound pattern, because the actual sound isn’t required, or essential; many distinct sounds can have the same sound pattern, such as child’s voice, a non-native speaker, a TV star, a drunk; recognition of the pattern is what creates meaning, not (just) recognition of the sound

- A sign is the conjunction of sound pattern and concept; a stop sign automatically tells us, signals ‘stop’ to us; if we see drivers ahead of us stop at an intersection (and don’t see a traffic light), we automatically assume there’s a stop sign, we make the association; even a crude drawing of a tree has the same effect, because the association works the same way, that is, the same combination of sound pattern and concept

- “But ‘stop’ means I do something, such as stop my car or bicycle; ‘tree’ doesn’t do that” – well, then ‘tree’ is a different kind of concept, one that does not involve a specific instruction; “kinds of words” are kinds of concepts, different ways to use signs in our social lives

§2

- the sign is arbitrary; it could be any sound pattern that, through the history of usage, a society/culture/language-user group agrees to use as a concept

- Is the stuff you grill to make a sandwich “cheese,” “fromage,” or “Käse”? It depends on where you are and which language you’re speaking, and only on that; none of these words is any closer to “the truth” than the others

- As Saussure says, there is no internal connection of signal to signification; the ‘external’ connection is linguistic structure, the history of the (particular) language; it is external precisely because it already existed before you and I were born; we learned it; and is there anything more important that we did in our lives to become who we are?

- Even signals which appear to be natural, such as ‘tick-tock’ for a ticking clock (an imitative sound), or bowing low to a superior authority, like an act of physiological submission, is only meaningful because it is a learned convention; unless someone understands that convention, that language, it isn’t meaningful

- Semiology means that all meaningful sounds behave like linguistic signs, or are a part of language

- “Arbitrary” does not mean that the sign can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean; it means that signs are chosen through the process linguistic history, and have no natural or absolute basis; cheese, fromage, and Käse are characteristic sounds of their languages, i.e., they “sound like” English, French, German words, and are consistent with the sound patterns of other words in those languages; beyond that, they have no special relation to what we put on sandwiches, in particular no natural or automatic relation; had the history of the language been different, so would the words

- [famous] example: in English, when the animal is walking around, we call it a cow [from German Kuh] or swine [from German Schwein]; when it’s on the table, as food, we call it beef or pork [from French boeuf and pork]; the change happened after the French invasion of England in 1066, after which all the ruling nobility were French, and so could afford to eat the meat; the English peasants who tended the animals could not, and so used the (older) words for the animals in the living form, which was how they knew them

- The fact that some words have sound patterns that resemble what they describe as a concept (such as “gurgle” or “screech” in English) doesn’t change the arbitrary nature of the sign, because other languages may not use a related sound for that concept; it’s never universal, and meaning always depends on the history of adopted conventions

- Exclamations, too, vary from language to language, and over time; it is not natural or inevitable that someone says “Ow!” or “Ouch!” when they bang their thumb with a hammer, any more than it’s natural they say—as I would, in that case--@!#$$#, %%$%#@&^!! *&*^%+$#@ !#@ %^$#@$!!

§3

- Signs are temporal; they take place in linear time, unfold one part at a time; we understand them by [Key term:] synthesis, by mentally combining the parts into wholes, and the wholes into larger wholes; as we hear or read them, syllables combine into words, words into phrases, phrases into sentences, paragraphs, stories, essays; articulation is the process of generating these parts in time; whether audibly (in speech) or visually (in writing), the temporal aspect of the process is equally essential

Chapter I §1 – Variability & Change

- Once a signal is chosen by a linguistic community, it cannot be changed, except by the community; since it is community (or communally) based, the process is a not a matter of free choice or contract (“hey, fellers! Why don’t we call them dumb birds “pigeons,” eh?); a language is always an inheritance from the past

- No society ever knows (its) language otherwise; hence, the origin of language is a fairly minor question; for practical purposes, it has “always been like this”

- What we inherit is above all linguistic structure: even if through speech acts we add words and expressions to “English” [with a capital ‘E’], the rules of its grammar (and spelling) change very slowly, over centuries—if at all

1. Language cannot be changed by conscious choice of the community (or individuals within the community), because it isn’t based on rational consensus in the first place; “the sign is arbitrary” also means that changing the system is difficult, because it is elusive

2. The working variables of a language are very small—27 letters in English, and about 90 different vocal sounds in total—but the combinations of them as signs are virtually limitless; again, that makes fundamental change difficult

3. The system is extremely complex; just to list all of the rules of spoken and written English would be a huge undertaking; it is hard to change for that reason, too

4. Collective inertia resists all innovations – everyone uses language constantly; even in a small community, the number of speech acts in a day is in the hundreds of thousands; changing a system so heavily used “on the fly” is difficult; hence “continuity with the past restricts freedom of choice”

- the sign is arbitrary, but fixed by tradition—and there is nothing else that “fixes” signs, gives them stability, except tradition

§2

- While the system of linguistic structure, anchored in the past of custom and tradition, is extremely slow to change, the language itself is not, in fact can change rapidly, because the relation between signal and signification is relatively unstable

- Changes in social customs can bring changes in such relations; the industrial revolution brought new words, and new senses for old ones (such as “work,” “job,” “task”); so did the computer revolution

- The sheer number of times that words are spoken every day tends, as we saw, to make changes to the system difficult; but, through usage, it makes changes to the signs probable, or at least very flexible; the ceaseless evolution of slang is a good illustration

- Hence “a language” and a linguistic community are inseparable; they define themselves and each other through (historical) time



 

Read more!