| Sosīrs |
[15. Jul 2005|16:33] |
|
By distinguishing thus between the language and the faculty of language, we see that the language is what we may call a 'product': it is a 'social product'; we have set it apart from the operation of the vocal apparatus, which is a permanent action. You can conjure up a very precise idea of this product - and thus set the language, so to speak, materially in front of you - by focussing on what is potentially in the brains of a set of individuals (belonging to one and the same community) even when they are asleep; we can say that in each of these heads is the whole product that we call the language. We can say that the object to be studied is the hoard deposited in the brain of each one of us; doubtless this hoard, in any individual case, will never turn Out to be absolutely complete. We can say that language always works through a language', without that, it does not exist. The language, in turn, is quite independent of the individual; it cannot be a creation of the individual-, it is essentially social; it presupposes the collectivity. Finally, its only essential feature is the combination of sound and acoustic image with an idea. (The acoustic image is the impression that remains with us the latent impression in the brain (D.)). There is no need to conceive it (the language) as necessarily spoken all the time.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm |
|
|
| Comments: |
Izklausās trakot lādzīgi.
un iedomājies tas ir [28 October 1910], kad viņš to publiskoja
Trakoti prātīgs vīruks acīmredzot. Citi laikam dažus gadu desmitus pēcāk par šīm te lietām sāka prātot. Būs jāpameklē un jāpalasās, man jau ir šīs te lietas tīkās.
man liekas, ka šals ir tajā, ka principā 'viņš joprojām ir aktuāls
nedzēsies, es nepaspēju izlasīt, man tikai šodien ir dators mājā :))
sauliit, iekopee linku, kas apakshaaa
kā tas nākas, ka tev nav e-pasts norādīt, uz kuru to linku tev varētu aizsūtīt? | |
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}