Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  LINGUISTIC SIGN
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The concept of philology seems awkward and obsolete nowadays and, therefore, we cannot bring it back into use without endowing it with an explicit and positive programme. The author’s programme is a consciously structuralist one, based on the polarity between language as an abstract sign system and concrete texts (including utterances) as sign formations. Signs are studied by oppositional differentiation, which leads, when applied to the abstract system of language, to their meaning, and when applied to concrete texts, to their sense. Meaning and sense are values philology must never cease searching for, while philologists must always be aware that the abstract system of language is (i) an intellectual construction only, whereas concrete texts are real, and (ii) the key to understanding any concrete text. The different size of linguistic signs is recognized and taken into consideration: not only morphemes, but also sentences are signs. Even concrete texts themselves may at least in one aspect be conceived of as signs, for they are also studied by oppositional differentiation. Since the value of a sign depends on the definitional domain of the other signs to which it is compared, a concrete text, be it a historical document or a poetic work, is not graspable if not read oppositionally in contrast to others. Yet, definitional domains of texts do not exist by themselves as natural phenomena. They are created by philologists who are responsible for their own choices. This will be illustrated, in a further paper, by a new esquisse of historical Baltic philology.
Onomastica
|
2005
|
vol. 50
67-83
EN
The complexity of the proper noun appears in defining individual objects from the viewpoint of two aspects of the onymic sign. At issue here are both its linguistic construction as well as its orthography understood in the normative-administrative sense. Very important for understanding the essence of the onymic sign is indication of the realization of semantic characteristics in the linguistic sphere. It is noted that the proper noun comprises a two-element sui generis linguistic sign, and at the same time is incorporated as a real element of the language into the specific category of names. Proper names form open sets of lexical elements of a given language, but belong also to specific onymic subsystems governed by their own rules. Numerous onymic characteristics differentiate the construction of personal names formed from appellatives to a significantly greater degree than occurs in the case of other onomastic categories. For onomastic researchers there is fundamental significance to the statement that this phenomenon reveals the double status of the proper noun - linguistic and onomastic.
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.
World Literature Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 10
|
issue 3
68 – 85
EN
Metaphor has been elevated and absolutized, but also exhausted and problematized in modernity. Above that, the language sign/symbol has been revealed as arbitrary and functional wherever imagination has failed. Metaphor exploits external or situational analogy, which is not arbitrary, if we consider it within a communicative situation. For this reason, metaphor has been pushed out of the focus of linguistics. Postmodern resignation to consistency and completeness of explanation has led to using metaphors – otherwise irreplaceable in forming new ideas and experiences – instead of definitions of concepts. We want to show that concepts can and should be analysed and defined. We propose that one can analyse in this way the problem of universal grammar and recursion in language. Reflecting on the function of metaphor in philosophy, we show that philosophical explanations are applicable in other disciplines dealing with language and communication.
5
Content available remote

Paremie wczoraj i dziś

75%
Bohemistyka
|
2012
|
vol. 12
|
issue 1
61-70
EN
Language always reflects the life of a certain society. Proverbs, which are the product of folk literature, are closely related to the thinking of the community. In the 20th century it was the city and city lifestyle that took over the dominating role in the society, and this fact has left its mark also on proverbs and sayings. The frequency of their occurrence has dropped and their form has undergone transformations changing their original meaning. Proverbs, the fruit of folk literature closely related to country life, are slowly disappearing in their original form from our lives. Several types of transformations they have undergone have deprived them of the original aesthetic and moral values.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.