Search results

1

Terminy językoznawcze w więzieniu systemu – na przykładzie terminów używanych przez de Saussure’a i ich polskich odpowiedników

100%

Gostkowska K.

Roczniki Humanistyczne

|

2014

|

vol. 62

|

issue 8: Lingwistyka Korpusowa i Translatoryka

49-64

EN

Ferdinand de Saussure is considered as the father of contemporary lingustics. Without questioning this statement I would like to concentrate on terms related to his theory and their Polish equivalents. In the first place the extratextual context in which the saussurean terms appear will be described. Secondly I will examine more precisely the ways the French terminology related to de Saussure’s theory is translated/introduced into Polish. The article is therefore an attempt to investigate the specificity of linguistics terms and the major obstacles that appear when translating those terms in a foreign language.

FR

Ferdinand de Saussure est considéré comme le père de la linguistique contemporaine. Sans nier cette constatation il sera question de se pencher sur les termes liés à sa théorie et leurs équivalents polonais. Après avoir présenté le contexte extratextuel dans lequel apparaissent les termes saussuriens, j’examinerai plus en détails les façons dont la terminologie française est traduite/ introduite en langue polonaise. Cette analyse sera ainsi l’occasion d’examiner quelle est la spécificité des termes utilisés en linguistique, et quels peuvent être les obstacles principaux à leur transmission dans une langue étrangère.

2

Z dziejów ogólnej teorii języka. Glosa w sprawie puścizny Humboldta i puścizny de Saussure’a

100%

Bogusławski A.

Linguistica Copernicana

|

2021

|

vol. 17

29-39

EN

The author argues that the biographical details concerning de Saussure’s attitude towards Humboldt’s legacy are tough to ascertain. Sobotka’s doubts about de Saussure being familiar with Humboldt’s specific writings can hardly be conclusively resolved this way or another. The author insists that Danielewiczowa, as well as he himself and his collaborator Drzazgowska, spoke merely about some striking affinity of ideas on the nature of language as voiced by de Saussure, compared with those to be found in the comprehensive corpus of Humboldt’s writings. On the whole, Sobotka himself is far from denying this widely acknowledged truth, too (whatever the specific paths of de Saussure’s reading and thinking might have been). Following a comparative sample of the main claims articulated by Humboldt, on the one hand, and by de Saussure, on the other, where certain differences between the thinkers can be observed, the author culls a number of Humboldt’s theoretical sayings about language and recalls de Saussure’s similar enunciations, a considerable part of which are even textually close to those made by Humboldt.

PL

Autor twierdzi, że biograficzne szczegóły dotyczące stosunku de Saussure’a do puścizny Humboldta są trudne do ustalenia. Wątpliwości Sobotki na temat de Saussure’a znajomości konkretnych pism Humboldta praktycznie nie podlegają weryfikacji, czy to pozytywnej, czy negatywnej. Autor twierdzi, że Danielewiczowa, podobnie jak on sam i Ewa Drzazgowska, mówili tylko o pewnym uderzającym podobieństwie idei dotyczących natury języka głoszonych przez de Saussure’a w zestawieniu z tym, co można znaleźć w obszernym korpusie prac Humboldta. Ogólnie rzecz biorąc, sam Sobotka jest daleki od negowania tej powszechnie uznanej prawdy (niezależnie od tego, jakie były konkretne drogi tego, co czytał i o czym myślał de Saussure). Autor podaje porównawczy wyciąg z głównych tez Humboldta i de Saussure’a, zwracając uwagę na pewne różnice między tymi myślicielami. Następnie przytacza szereg teoretycznych wypowiedzi Humboldta i przypomina podobne enuncjacje de Saussure’a, których poważna część jest nawet tekstualnie bliska temu, co znajdujemy u Humboldta.

3

Być w mówieniu i być mówionym – o teorii języka Jacques’a Lacana i jej konsekwencjach dla podmiotowości

98%

Michalik G.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2020

|

issue 33

103-125

EN

It seems rather obvious that Jacques Lacan’s theory is Freudian psychoanalysis combined with structural linguistics. But it is not so conclusive: in Lacan’s work we can find many elements with different origins to linguistics. Moreover, Lacan’s subversion of structuralist theses makes any unambiguous assignment impossible. In the article, the author describes the evolution of Lacan’s theory of language and its consequences for the issue of subjectivity in psychoanalysis resulting from the use of linguistic tools.

4

Is Money a Linguistic Form? Integrating Simmel’s Construction of Monetary Value into the Framework of the Philosophy of Language

85%

Leder A.

Polish Sociological Review

|

2018

|

vol. 204

|

issue 4

515-526

EN

In his study, the author discusses his hypothesis of money as a linguistic form, one understood sensu stricto, as Ferdinand de Saussure would. This approach seems to be the key to explaining some important phenomena: the so-called ‘economics imperialism’ in the social sciences and the specific character of economic language, as seen from the perspective of the humanities. Both the ‘uncanny character’ of economic terms and ‘economics imperialism’ appear in this text as symptoms, or ways in which economic signs, especially money understood as a sign, specifically manifest themselves. The logical analysis of the construction of these signs-analysis based on Saussure’s and Simmel’s propositions-is the main topic of this article. First, the author revisits a well-known parallel between formal structures of linguistic and monetary signs developed in Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics. Second, a crucial difference in these structures is presented and theoretically explained using tools developed by Georg Simmel. The author goes on to consider whether this difference locates the monetary sign outside the realm of language per se. Finally, by applying certain claims made by Ludwig Wittgenstein on the limits of language, the author develops his hypothesis that money is a linguistic sign, but a specific one; it is a kind of a ‘border phenomenon.’ In this text, the author proposes the term ‘linguistic form’ to distinguish this kind of sign. Some theoretical and social consequences of this state of affairs are proposed; inter alia the immanent social antagonism between the symbolic articulation of the social sphere and the economic one.

5

Leon Zawadowski, Szkic z perspektywy osobistej

85%

Bogusławski A.

Linguistica Copernicana

|

2014

|

issue 11

15-28

EN

The author, first, reminds the Reader of the main points of Leon Zawadowski's scholarly career, second, calls the Reader's attention to some of the principal linguistic-theoretical tenets of his works, third, offers an outline of certain events in his pedagogical activity, in particular, as a visiting professor in Warsaw (in the mid-sixties), fourth, presents personal reminiscenses of encounters with Zawadowski at, roughly, the same time, and reports on certain facts concerning the influence that Zawadowski's writing had on his own work in the fifties and sixties. The remarks on Zawadowski's contribution on the theory of language encompass: a short presentation of the fundamental linguistic-theoretical ideas outlined by Zawadowski, a high appraisal of the weight and style of his work, and a comparison of his theoretical approach with that of Wittgenstein as the author of the Tractatus, as well as with de Saussure's works. Both Wittgenstein and Zawadowski are classed among proponents of the knowledge-centered logocentrism in the theory of language (which is a position the author endorses), as opposed to de Saussure's and the later several claims made by Zawadowski, in particular, on account of his claim of the necessity of a unilateral approach to so-called "linguistic signs" in its contrast to de Saussure'a and Wittgenstein's ideas of the primordial status of bilateral units of language (as emerging from Martinet's "first level of (linguistic) articulation").

6

Historia i struktura. Problem uprawomocnienia

74%

Leder A.

Praktyka Teoretyczna

|

2016

|

vol. 22

|

issue 4

132-151

EN

In his text the author is defining the conflict of the structuralist and historicist – synchronic and diachronic thought – described by de Saussure–- as a development of two different ethical axioms in the field of social philosophy. He tries to show, how each of this axioms can generate a different ontology of social being. Applying some elements of Deleuzian thought the author analyzes the theoretical position of the two ethical axioms. Then, on the fundament of the Lacanian, and more generally poststructuralist thought he tries to give a draft of a theoretical space in which such a change of ethical positions would be possible. He develops thus a new philosophy of symbolic fields.

PL

Zarysowany przez de Saussure‟a spór pomiędzy myśleniem strukturalistycznym a historycznym autor rozpoznaje jako konflikt zasad etycznych w filozofii społecznej. Pokazuje, jak każda z tych zasad generuje inną ontologię społecznego bytu. Na przykładzie Deleuze‟a rozważa teoretyczne umiejscowienie każdej z tych etycznych pozycji, a potem, w oparciu o myśl poststrukturalistyczną, a szczególnie Lacanowską, próbuje naszkicować teoretyczną przestrzeń, w której takie zmiany pozycji etycznej byłyby możliwe. Wypracowuje w ten sposób pewną filozofię pól symbolicznych.

Refine search results

2 Linguistica Copernicana

1 Polish Sociological Review

1 Praktyka Teoretyczna

1 Przestrzenie Teorii

1 Roczniki Humanistyczne

2 Bogusławski A.

2 Leder A.

1 Gostkowska K.

1 Michalik G.

1 2021

1 2020

1 2018