Editor for this issue: Elaine Halleck <elaine
linguistlist.org>
Roman Jakobson, E.Colin Cherry and Morris Halle maintain, in "Toward the Logical Description of Language in their Phonemic Aspect" (Jakobson, Selected Writings vol.1, 450), "Once this set (of distinctive features) is determined, all other phonetic differences among morphemes or words of the given language can be shown to be predictable and therefore redundant." Could you illustrate the relation between "predictability" and "redundancy"? If possible, I will furnish a summary.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Now I am doing my master degree thesis. I need a copy of "Epilegomena to a Theory of Language" by Sydney M. Lamb. It was published in "Romance Philology 19" in 1966. Could anyone do me a favour? Thanks in advance. yours, Wang Zhenyu Address: Room 1056, Building 46 Peking University, Beijing 100871, ChinaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In "Modern Theories of Language -- the Empirical Challenge" (Duke UP, 1992) Morteza Mahmoudian mentions "I support the idea that Hjelmslev's (1953) method could be called formalistic, idealistic. The danger is in its formalism.(12). It seems that Wolfgang Wildgen has a different understanding. In his "Process, Image, and Meaning -- a realistic model of the meanings of sentences and narrative texts" (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994), he presents his idea this way: "Hjelmslev's commnetary refers basically to expression substance... . But the substance of content should be analyzed in a parrallel fashion and Hjelmslev refers to inborn content categories and sensory experiences. Metaphorical processes in meaning are examples of the level of social evaluation. These remarks of Hjelmslev show that he planned an analysis of content substance underlyiong linguistic analysis proper. he explicitly introduces a stratified ontology based on an evolutionary scale (physical environment, socio-biological organizaton, mental organization in societal evaluation). I think that he was very close to a REALISTIC posistion in semantics" (my capitalization). Why is there such an opposition in the understanding of Hjelmslev's theory? Could the authors state their ideas more clearly? What is your understanding of Hjelmslev's theory and what is your comment on the above-cited remarks, dear linguists on line? I will write a summary if it is in my capacity.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue