Search results

1

Komunikace versus systém, nebo komunikace versus model?

100%

Cech R.

Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

|

2005

|

vol. 66

|

issue 3

176-180

EN

This article is a reaction to M. Komarek's essay Communication versus system? (1999) and is primarily concerned with the critical analysis of the dichotomic concept of natural language. In particular, the absence of empirical evidence for a language system (langue) is pointed out, which creates serious issues for the entire structuralist approach. That is, if it is impossible to have empirical experience with a language system (langue), it is thus impossible from the position of empirical science to make any sort of claim regarding the relationship between this system and concrete instances of speech. It is thus deemed necessary to reject the langue-parole dichotomy in linguistics. The aim of non-dichotomic linguistics is, then, to create models of the speech behavior of language users, not the reconstruction of a language system (langue). As natural language in actual communication is quite varied, these models will have a merely approximative character.

2

Od významu v jazyce ke smyslu v textu: O dobrodružství strukturalistické cesty

88%

Hoskovec T.

Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

|

2008

|

vol. 69

|

issue 1-2

110-131

EN

There is no one single structuralism, but sets of texts conceivable of as SCHOOLS, if they share a common notional apparatus, or FOCI (FOYERS), if a shared FORUM and mutual knowledge of the texts within one set may be supposed. Consequently, what is usually called the Prague School is not a school, but a focus (foyer). The author presents a complex notional apparatus for treating the LINGUISTIC SIGN when combining the approaches of two structuralist schools, that of Functional-Generative Description (Prague focus) and that of Interpreting Semantics (Paris focus with a Copenhagen affiliation). The linguistic sign is perseveringly treated in the dif-ferential (not re-ferential, nor in-ferential) way, and there are two environments in which this can be done: the abstract system of language and a concrete text (both written and oral). Problems encountered and solutions proposed through that way are presented.

3

Vachkův pohled na jazykový systém a jazykové normy

75%

Urbanová L.

Časopis pro moderní filologii (Journal for Modern Philology)

|

2010

|

vol. 92

|

issue 1-2

49-54

EN

In her paper the author recalls her collaboration with the great Czech and world-known Anglicist Josef Vachek, and characterizes his view of the development of the language system. She compares his philosophy of language with that of Wilhelm von Humboldt, who likewise understood language changes as the result of cooperation between internal factors, originating in the language system, and external factors, operating in consonance with ever-changing extralinguistic reality. The paper deals with Vachek’s view of language, which he regards as having two autonomous and complementary language norms: written and spoken. The author presents her position on the shifting borderline between the spoken and the written language in contemporary communication. She compares Vachek’s assessment of the two norms with the British and American approaches as represented especially by M. A. K. Halliday and W. Chafe.

Refine search results

2 Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

1 Časopis pro moderní filologii (Journal for Modern Philology)

1 Cech R.

1 Hoskovec T.

1 Urbanová L.

1 2010

1 2008

1 2005

Komunikace versus systém, nebo komunikace versus model?

Od významu v jazyce ke smyslu v textu: O dobrodružství strukturalistické cesty

Vachkův pohled na jazykový systém a jazykové normy