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 TURN
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

K čemu je dobrý obrat k jazyku a jiné: polemika s Romanem Göttlicherem

100%
Nagy M.
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 2
116-129
EN
This essay is a reaction to Roman Goettlicher's article Communication, Silence and Speech in Christianity (2003). It aims to show that Goettlicher does not provide just cause to deduce the insufficiency of natural language and the superiority of silence, as the article's concluding passages state. In addition, the article's indirect criticism of the Linguistic Turn and related appeal for a turn away from language is an unsuitable approach to the context of this philosophical scheme as well as to paragraph 7 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. The author argues that a) in communication, silence cannot be conceived as a sign above natural language because the two are complementary - silence acquires meaning only in relation to verbal response, b) claiming the insufficiency of natural language is a question of religious disposition and is not supported by any linguistic arguments in Goettlicher's article, c) the Linguistic Turn has actually helped to reveal the role of natural language in our conception of the world, and natural language has become an essential basis for philosophical exploration, and d) Goettlicher's use of citations from Wittgenstein's Tractatus is not well-founded, because Wittgenstein addresses problems in describing the world using language, not the sufficiency of language for communication with God.
2

Koniunkcje historii i literatury w perspektywie zwrotu lingwistycznego i rosyjskiego postmodernizmu. Przypadek Małego palca Buddy Wiktora Pielewina

100%
Nakoneczny T.
Sensus Historiae. Studia interdyscyplinarne
|
2013
|
issue 1(10)
63-92
EN
The article presents Viktor Pielevin’s of the Little Finger of Budda as a case of radical revealing cultural of roots of great historical narrations. That radicalism just, in combination with the proficiency at using language of the popular culture, seems to open the new communications prospect before the historical thinking. Prospect including forms, from one side, formed of the discourse (literary, historical, Community) along with his standards and institutions and — from the other side — recipient willing to the defiance of traditional modes of the reading, disposed if not suspiciously, it at least critically (nonconformist), but first of all orientated to the reception desk of the written story in credible for oneself tongue.
3

DISSIMILATION OF THE ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY, OR HOW DO PHILOSOPHERS DEVISE A TRADITION (Dysymiliatsia analitychnoi filosofii, abo Yak filosofy vynakhodiat' tradytsiiu)

100%
Tsyba V.
Філософська Думка
|
2010
|
issue 2
145-153
EN
The problem of origins of the analytic philosophy is a subject of a profound intrinsic consideration among such contemporary thinkers as R. Monk. His key standpoint is that interpretative clue protracted by M. Dummett made it possible to discover a historic impetus for the whole 'linguistic movement' in Frege's thought. Monk's objection points out that the analytic philosophy was full-methodologically structured movement already defined in its strategies since the beginning. The crucial opposition between those analysts who declared logic as a vehicle for a metaphilosophical position and those who considered it were the final aim of its development was exposed in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Although the patterns of reconsidering the method-validity problem became the point of self-identification for analysts, which then established two traditions - logical and linguistic analysis - instead of the former one, the real core within this tradition was not 'the linguistic turn' but, namely, the variety of possibilities of the analysis. The author's opinion is that a devising of any kind of tradition is a way to sum up and outline its perspectives; hereby it needs such a rewriting which would productively include each of alternatives into assessment of its own historic self-reflections.
4
Content available remote

FROM THE LINGUISTIC TURN TO THE REFERENTIAL TURN: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF THEORY IN THOMAS G. PAVEL Ś AND LUBOMÍR DOLEŽAL Ś CRITICISM

88%
Goldiş A.
World Literature Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 7 (24)
|
issue 2
49 – 59
EN
The paper delineates conditions of theoretical transformations in the works of Lubomír Doležal and Thomas G. Pavel, starting from the assumption that their cultural evolution has been similar. Not only did they share the same ideological background, common to the East and Central European countries under the Soviet regime, but their theoretical options were coloured by the same dilemmas. Originally they were promoters of the structuralist linguistic methods, they both embraced linguistic approaches to literature in their first books only to depart from them later in favour of the possible world theory. A comparative focus on the stages of their evolution from the linguistic turn to the referential turn is needed. The study emphasizes both the specificities of this evolution – indebted to the autochthonous tradition of the two authors – and its paradigmatic aspect: the mobility of their theoretical reflection enacts the metamorphosis of the literary studies throughout the last half century.
5

Habermas' self-correction

75%
Dombos P.
Szociologiai Szemle (Sociological Review)
|
2007
|
vol. 17
|
issue 1-2
3-15
EN
Differences between some sentences in the original German text of 1981 and their English translation of 1984 were found in Volume 1 of Habermas's opus magnum. It turned out to be an accurate self-correction of Habermas, which created there a concise summary of the teleological aspects of his speech act theory. This improved the linguistic devotion of his argument, but weakened the practical, social influence of his theory of communicative action. Some other topics within the vast secondary literature on Habermas are also touched: the meanings of the key term 'Verstandigung' ('Understanding'), problems around the validity claims, the formal, procedural character of his theory, i.e. the lack of substantive, causal factors. The latter traits and - behind them - Habermas's close connection with the dominant philosophical trend of the 'linguistic turn' (Rorty 1967) are supposed to have led to the fact that Habermas's theory has failed to fulfil possible hopes about social mobilization effects in the late 20th century. Yet, Habermas's theory has vast significance. Besides complementing the 'paradigm of production' with the one of communicative interaction, enriching the notion of modem democracy, highlighting the significance of interpersonal social networks through the elaboration of the 'lifeworld' concept, Habermas's work in providing theoretical foundations to the problem of modernity is of key importance. Through analysing 'the unfinished project of modernity, of the Enlightenment', whose contemporary defects 'can only be made good by further enlightenment', Habermas sums up the essence of our age of globalization, of capitalism. He provides a program for all social scientific workshops still following the paradigm of historical progress and working for a developed, humane and democratic society, but sometimes being on the defensive today. The extension and supplementation of Habermas's theory of modernity, with a 'social turn' (Roderick 1986) and a 'causal turn' are being proposed.
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.