520 |
|
|
|f In the 20th century, systemic linguistics prevailed, thanks to the centrality of the concurrent pair within the conceptual engineering of Saussure: The tongue and speech. The role of his lessons was generally to provide the scientific framework for the study of human language as sign systems, where they responded to a predominant lingual perception founded at that time on raw lingual events as the primary material for the treatment of language phenomena. It is in fact a perception that became incapable of considering tongues as collective systems. He distinguished two aspects of the language which come together: On the one hand, there is the tongue as an unadulterated, common and communicative systemic part, and on the other hand, there is the speech, as a tangible and individual activity.\nAs such, with the propositions of De Saussure, even if the structural linguistics description later required what was known as “actions of speech” with the pragmatic concept of the term to develop its principles and theories, they nevertheless do not consider these works except as possible phenomena, and only serve to support the building of the language system. That is as the research is in respect to the tongue and not the speech (Totching 2000). The speech cycle also engages in the logic of cryptographic communication, and in this logic the sign is defined by its location within the system of signs.\nProceeding from the paradoxes created by the pairings of De Saussure, the pragmatic direction worked on expanding the structural perspective. This is firstly through the inference that speech, in addition to being an application and fulfiller of language standards, also represents a variable component in the language compared to the existing code and a powerful generator of new codes. Just as each speech action has a place within a position which determines the space-temporal and social-historical facts. As such, pragmatism took care of explaining how these data interact with the tongue system and how meaning is generated within a given position and situation (Austin 1970).\nThe concept of Al-Maqam (position) is a key concept in the pragmatic proposition, through which it is intended to reveal how the language works in a sense within specific positions, and the forms of disconnection of this work in a part of it, in terms of the Syntax and science of semantics. Although it also forms in another part through them.\nIt exceeds the meeting between tongue and institution on the one hand and speech and individual on the other hand, as pragmatism does not separate from a movement of thinking that is a process formed within a group of humanities and social sciences with the emergence of controversy between society and the individual. That is through continuous interaction between major and minor levels and a complex relationship between code standards and reuse. The pragmatic process is rooted in the criticism of the exclusion of speech, as it is merely an investigation of the tongue in the linguistics of De Saussure. It was then later renewed with a contrasting conception with the semiotics of Charles Pierce (Peirce, 2002). \nPerhaps the main question that concerns us in this work is the impact of communication approaches on the treatment of the semantic component in semantic theories that have characterized almost a century of linguistic work. As such, we are concerned with the problem of the contribution of lingual perceptions to the concept of communication in directing angles of view towards specific walks to describe the semantics in order to understand the sociological system of these perceptions and to monitor the contribution of different lingual and non-lingual levels in determining this component.\nIn this work, we therefore attempt to address the concept of communication, starting with the theories of communication with the unifying linear pattern, the cryptographic approach according to De Saussure, and the structural theories that branched from his statements and rotated around their orbit. That is to automatically delve into explaining the drawbacks of these statements concerning the pragmatic approaches which were critical of the structural approach of communication, in terms of the theory of language actions of Austin and Searle, and with what was published almost in parallel, in terms of the relevance theory of Sperber Wilson et Wilson 1989. That is in addition to the works of the Palo Alto School in this regard, which also worked to oppose the cryptographic approach of De Saussure. Arriving to the semantic recognition, which adopted the cryptographic visualization by refuting its initial principles and omitting the relationship of productive communication to human recognition. In general, these are proposals which have sought to address the issues of communication and their crucial role in shaping the subject's interpretation from different and critical perspectives. They have developed today with psycho-social pragmatism and semantic recognition by expanding the concept of communication and interaction within different social and customary contexts.\nThis abstract translated by Dar AlMandumah Inc 2018.
|