These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
As for Saussure, he was interested in diachronic change in langue no less than the sychronic structue; but I don't recall him ever addressing parole as informing diachronic change.
I would guess that on this list Jay may be the best to help with this. On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Martin Packer wrote:
I think that LSV would have said that the phenomena Andy has been talking about are examples of sense. I want to point out again that LSV, like Saussure, is drawing a distinction between speech and language (I always forget the French: is it parole and langue?) But whereas Saussure drew a structuralist bifurcation between the two, system and utterance, LSV insists both that they are distinct and that they are related. Not only does the system establish the conditions for utterances (which Saussure recognized), so too, ultimately (that's to say, towards the end of chapter 7), sense feeds back into meaning - utterances transform the system. To my (limited) knowledge, Saussure was not interested in this, or didn't allow that it could happen. In this regard LSV anticipates Derrida and others. Martin
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca