regression to glossematics

7/25/2019 Regression to Glossematics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/regression-to-glossematics 1/3

Regression to Glossematics Why and How?

(Summary in English)

Mohammad Amin Shakeri

In this short issue, it is discussed about the necessity and the possibility of regressing,

reviving and engaging in Hjelmslev’s linguistic theory, called Glossematics , especially

for the linguistic studies and literatures in the Persian sphere. First, under the caption

“The narrated history”, we caught a glimpse of the common main narrating line, which

has constructed the “history of modern linguistics”: the ideation of Saussure; the

foundings and groundings of Bloomfield, Sapir, Trubetzkoy, Jacobson, Firth, Jones,

Benveniste, Hjelmslev and etc.; and the new great attempts − among others particularly

by Chomsky and elsewhere by Halliday− lead us to the creditable and reliable

paradigms like “Generative Grammar”(new versions), “Systemic Functional Grammar”,

“Cognitive Linguistics” and etc. Finally, it is mentioned that in this history, there are

some basic approaches were subjected to rejection, diminution, negligence, or isolation,

where Glossematics is an obvious example.

After that, under the caption “Critique of the narrated history”, we are suggested for a

hesitation about the identity of the creditability which is granted by the realizations in the

narrated history, and the reliability of thought which is rooted in the very core of the

main questions and problems. This is a doubting which is necessary to be posed, but it

is not the case to be answered here and forever. Next, the core questions are identified

as: What is language? (Or, what we are talking about when we are talking about

language?), and How the approach to a knowledge of language should be? (Or, what



are the purposes and duties of the science of language?). Reflection on this points of

departures, leads us to a rethinking of the semi-safe situation of linguistic thought which

is realized in the main lines and the creditable paradigms, and slows down our zealous

haste towards the knowledge of language through them. As it seems to the author, the

proper approach, with respect to the core questions, is the one which could make

connections with most of (or all) other approaches, guaranties the return of the loss

caused by the necessary scientific reductions of the object, counting for all possible

relations ever could be observed (whether intensive or extensive), and has a reflexive

method, i.e. the possibility of explaining itself just by relying on itself. The author

believes that these requirements are the ones, most of which couldn’t be met in thecreditable registered paradigms realized in the narrated history.

In the caption “Why Glossematics?”, after claiming that the Hjelmslevian approach –

which is remained unknown for the majority of linguists and semiotists (specifically in

Iran)- is the one that could meet the addressed requirements and has the proper

answers to the core questions, it is enumerated some of its main advantaging

characteristics: quoting a paragraph of Prolegomena , its object is the living vague

language (or text) which saturates the totality of subject’s life; the holism and

immanency become the two concepts which make a reciprocal determination between

epistemology and linguistic theory –not just as pure methodological ones; its ultimate

goal is not just describing a “natural language”, or even “the language” in its general

term, but an inclusive knowledge about “humanitas et universitas ”; its duty is to

construct a “calculus” which is purely formal and arbitrary , so it could be free of all

axioms, positive premises and transcendental judgments; and so, it is searching for “the

generals” instead of “the universals”. Besides these characteristics, and with respect to

them, the author believes that this immanent approach to the knowledge of language is

the one which is the most adjoining to the idea of democracy .



Under the last caption, “How Glossematics?”, it is pointed out that the general science

of Glossematics is a long-term program in its application and improvement, which is

even now at its very first steps. After mentioning the flexibility of the approach and the

effortful duty and significant role of the theoretician, we have a very short narration of

Glossematics inner history, from the first attempts to the current studies. In two last

paragraphs, the author offers some suggestions for dealing with Glossematics today,

with a focus on Persian literature: first of all, trying to grasp the theory with respect to all

its foundations and basic ideas; scrutinizing the works of Hjelmslev himself; translating

the main Glossematical materials and trying to establish an equivalent terminology in

Persian; reading the secondary materials and contributing current issues and critiques;trying to extend the approach in various dimensions and estimating the possible

connections could be made with current situations of linguistics, philosophy, semiotics,

logic, psychology, sociology and all other sciences, as it was the case for Hjelmslev;

and trying to build spreading materials and pedagogical tools for grounding for following

studies. These are a lot, and should be done carefully and step-by-step!

regression to glossematics

Documents