Peirce’s sign model is introduced as incompatible with structural semiology in the majority of semiotics textbooks. In this paper, I would like to argue against this general polarization of the semiotic discipline. I focus on compatibilities between Lucien Tesnière’s syntactic theory (verbal valency) and Peirce’s logic of relatives. My main argument is that structural linguistics is not necessarily dyadic, and that Peirce’s sign doctrine is perfectly structural. To define the structural approach in Peirce, I analyze the notions of form (structure) (...) and substance in Hjelmslev and Peirce. The aim of my argument is to contribute to attempts to introduce Peirce’s theory to the field of linguistics in the hope that such an integration will be beneficiary for general linguistics. To extend and support my argument, I provide some examples from biology where Peirce’s theory has been applied. I demonstrate an analogy between the biological structures of proteins and the structure of a sentence with Peirce’s own writings. I consequently introduce Peirce as the first structural semiologist and as the first biolinguist. (shrink)

This study looks at the way in which students give meaning to the examples that are presented to them during educational presentations. Our research objectives are (1) to identify the properties of examples, (2) to observe their impacts for students and (3) to establish connections between their properties and their impacts. Start from 15 individual interviews with university students, we were able to identify twelve specific properties, six distinct ranges of impacts. More over, several connections can be woven between their (...) properties and their effects. To conclude, this study stresses the value and even the necessity, of taking into account the impact of language in pedagogical presentations and to continue research into this specific language practice in order to improve teaching practices. (shrink)

From the first decades of the 20th century, the crisis of Logicism and its inappropriate propositions for the general basis of the analysis of all the facts is among the most problematic epistemological issues. By studying the specific mental functions of primitive societies from a new angle, Lévy-Bruhl shows that if we want to have an appropriate analysis of their fundamentally different mind and life, it would be necessary to introduce a mentality other than our scientific-logical one. He calls it (...) “mystic mentality”; a mentality which, instead of logic, is based on “prelogic”. The prelogical system is indifferent to the law of non-contradiction and is formed based on the law of “participation”. He claims that these two distinct and independent types of mentality coexist. Hjelmslev basically accepts Lévy-Bruhl's proposal and takes advantage of the epistemological consequences of his ideas as a support for dealing with the general problem of structural analysis. Taking the most general concept of language as the object of his special immanent theory, he introduces the “sublogical system” as a ground from which the logic and prelogic can be derived. He refers to the law of participation and claims that the basic opposition in a semiotic is that between A and A+, and not, as logic assumes, the one between A and non-A. Regarding this hypothesis, Hjelmslev establishes a formal sublogical calculus in the procedure of his Glossematics while treating the analysis of systems. It should be considered as an alternative to the logical proposal which is established as the basis of the analysis in many theories such as those of Jakobson, Lévi-Strauss, Chomsky, and so on. In the present study, we intended to explain Lévy-Bruhl’s prelogic and Hjelmslev’s sublogic and their relations, and to cast light on an important possible response to the epistemological problem of the inadequacy of logicism. (shrink)

The following paper is based on a broad understanding of communication that considers as text basically anything that has been created within the framework of a cultural interaction by an author and that is perceived by a recipient. The first part of the paper introduces, explains and follows mostly cases in which the author’s violations of the recipient’s expectations have a communication value, i.e. provoke, in the recipient, a communication effect that matches the author’s intentions. In such cases, this effect (...) results as a consequence of an violation of the communication „cooperative“ principles. This, at the recipient’s end, translates into an event of expectancy violation. Each of such violations provokes an arousal in the recipient, which further motivates him/her to search for its cause. Finding this cause, and being “confronted” with the related violation pertaining to it with the norm equals, for the recipient, getting to the meaning of the text, or identifying its communication value etc. As part of the conclusion, a commented scheme is presented which offers a spectrum of possible communication outcomes “positioned” between the predictability of each textual element and the stochasticity of choice. The effort to illustrate all the explained facts results, in the paper, in a rich set of examples stemming from miscellaneous spheres of human activity – from “high styles” to rather day-to-day activities, to pop-culture. The objective is to show that the described principles, if not valid in general, permeate at least all forms of interaction. (shrink)