Carol,

 

Both Derrida's statement and that of Bennett and Royle are put in such a
way that they are automatically true if their terms are taken in
particular ways - that is, if I define "text" broadly enough, then I can
easily include the universe as I comprehend it, and "bound up with" is a
phrase of such delightful flexibility that it can be taken however one
wants it. I'm not saying this to argue that their positions are wrong;
rather, I'm arguing that their statements don't constitute arguments or
evidence in and of themselves. To put it mildly, there's an empirical
problem with trying to prove - or disprove - the claim that no cognition
exists without some involvement of language (for one thing, we'd have to
define "cognition," or even "thought," and, well, throw that one out in
a roomful of philosophers and watch what happens). 

 

Derrida and many others were, I think, rightly reacting against a kind
of default model of language in which it was assumed that thoughts were
pre-linguistic, and simply encoded in language in order to be
transmitted (the old "telephone" diagram from Saussure's students'
notes). That approach leads to the standard "black box" model from
engineering that underlies the way most linguistics textbooks still
present the basics of the domain (although most carefully inform
students that it's an oversimplification and it's only being used as a
starting point). Saying that no cognition is extralinguistic is a
classic case of trying to prove a negative - and I don't think we even
have to try. Saying that much thought is intralinguistic is all that's
necessary to establish that we should study those relationships. 

 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 6:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Form and function (philosophy of language)

 

Jacques Derrida in his book Of Grammatology (1976): "There is nothing
outside the text" (163).

And commenting on Derrida...

"There is no perception or experience which is not bound up with effects
of text or language" (Bennett & Royle 30).
So their is no way to perceive the world or access the world except
through language.

 

Also, Paulo Freire: "There is no theoretical context if it is not in a
dialectical unity with the concrete context ; language is never separate
from experience and thus action is deeply a part of theoretical
supposition" (Politics of Education 33).

 

I am trying to think of the theorist who said that there is a gap
between signifier and signified, so that language is never adequate in
describing or representing what it intends to.

 

Carol
"Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

	Just to chime in on Johanna's point -- There's a kind of
"envelope"
	within which the relationship(s) between language and thought
(or
	language and perception) must lie. If language *determined*
thought
	(what used to be called the "strong form of the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis)
	we'd be unable to come up with concepts our language didn't
already have
	words for. That's obviously not the case.
	
	On the other hand, if language had no influence on thought, it
would be
	very, very hard to explain why advertising companies devote so
much time
	and money to coming up with good product names, or why (to
	non-vegetarians, at least) a "steak" sounds much more appetizing
than "a
	piece of cooked cow."
	
	The work on color terminology, by the way, hasn't as much
discredited
	the SWH entirely as it has put sharp limits on it. Our color
perception
	is determined to a great extent by the biophysics of our
perceptual
	apparatus (people have three kinds of color sensors, each of
which
	"peaks" at a particular range of wavelengths) but *within* those
limits,
	language can have an effect. 
	
	Bill Spruiell
	Dept. of English
	Central Michigan University
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
	[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
	Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:54 PM
	To: [log in to unmask]
	Subject: Re: Form and function (philosophy of language)
	
	It's important to remember that Whorf was theorizing about
_habitual_ 
	thought that is influenced by language. He thought that some 
	languages reflected the physical world better than others. For 
	instance, in English, "lightning" is a noun, and we don't even
have 
	an exclusive verb for it, but physically, it's an event or
process 
	much more than a thing. He obviously didn't think that we are 
	irrevocably stuck in patterns of thought because of our
language, 
	because his very recommendation was that we use other languages
for 
	physical descriptions of the world, hence he had to believe that
we 
	could modify our thoughts to fit the language we are using.
	
	The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been out of favor for a long
time, but 
	numerous linguists are exploring it again and looking for some 
	empirical support for it. I have seen notices for conferences,
for 
	example. I have not been following the developments, but it
would be 
	interesting to see what is being discovered. I did review a
paper for 
	Language which purported to show some Whorfian effect regarding 
	spatial orientation, which was a little more convincing than the
work 
	on color, which has been discredited.
	
	In Lakoff and Johnson's model of metaphorical thought, metaphor 
	precedes language -- that is, language reflects metaphorical
thought; 
	it only creates it to the extent that particular metaphors are 
	propagated throughout a culture via its language. Some metaphors
are 
	culture-specific, and some are (according to L & J) universal.
Either 
	kind can influence how scientists analyze the world and how they

	build models of it. Lakoff has a book (with a co-author) on the 
	metaphorical origins of mathematics, but I don't recall the
title. A 
	cruise on his web page is likely to reveal it. L & J propose
that 
	metaphor influences not only language, but behavior. For
instance, 
	reifying time into units impels us to create things like hourly
wages 
	and parking meters.
	
	It's worth noting that L & J propose that we can change our
thought 
	habits by adopting new metaphors, for instance "marriage is a 
	collaborative work of art" rather than traditional physical-bond

	metaphors. Different metaphors can give a different spin on 
	phenomena, creating new linguistic metaphors and new habits of
thought.
	
	Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
	Associate Professor, Linguistics
	Linguistics Minor Advisor
	English Dept.
	Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
	San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
	Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
	Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
	Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
	E-mail: [log in to unmask]
	URL: cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
	
	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
	interface at:
	http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
	and select "Join or leave the list"
	
	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
	
	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
	http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
	and select "Join or leave the list"
	
	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

 

  

________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http:/tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearc
h/category.php?category=shopping>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/