The limits of (not just linguistic) structuralism
A B S T R A C T
This paper deals with structuralism, its roots, general principles and limitations. It follows the evolution of the main structuralist notions (structure, system) in Schleiermacher’s and Humboldt’s theories of language and tries to explain the causes of the Saussurean langue-parole dichotomy. It argues that the ambiguous Saussurean concept of the sign offers interpretations and theories of natural language which differ from one another entirely. The development of the Prague School and Glossematics demonstrates modalities of solutions to important structuralist problems, in particular that of the relationship between an autonomous language system (or its theory) and the reality of dynamic speech. Philosophical structuralism stems from a “strong” interpretation of some passages from Course in General Linguistics and represents a kind of reaction to the development of natural science. Unlike natural science, structuralism aimed to discover invariant components of reality and aspired toward a complete explanation of the Universe. Neostructuralism has redefined some of the main structuralist notions and offered two very different ways of developing structuralist approaches. The first of these, represented by Deleuze, looks to “empty” basic structuralist notions. The second, represented by Derrida, leaves the main ideas of classical structuralism in the background of their radical interpretations.
Daný článek je on-line k dispozici v databázi CEEOL.
Katedra českého jazyka a literatury PedF UP
Žižkovo nám. 5, 771 40 Olomouc
Previous František Daneš: Řeč hudby a řeč o hudbě
© 2011 – HTML 4.01 – CSS 2.1