[lit-ideas] Re: The Order of Aurality ratification of fiction
- From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:58:04 +0200
** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 3/12/2012 (Monday) **
suppos derrida and derriqua were joking, how do you recognize the sarcasm?
>>> Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> 3/12/2012 2:40 PM >>>
Walter wrote:
"All symbolic languages are translatable into each other in that their
respective semantic and syntactic features are in principle
universally intelligible. This excludes the lion. Were he to speak, we
would not understand him because we would fail to see how his speech
coheres with chess, curling, etc.."
But if we are able to recognize that lions use language, that is use
symbols/signs to refer to things in the world, then it is possible to
translate, to some degree, that language. We could observe the
conditions under which the symbols/signs are used, the response of
other lions, and the outcomes that follow from the language use. What
else would there be that would cause us to not understand the
language?
One of my difficulties lies in the claim that we could recognize
language use without being able to interpret it. This seems to imply
that there is something essential about language use that is not open
to see, that lies beyond the regularity of signs, the behavior of
language users, and the conditions under which the language is used.
It seems to me that if there was such an essential quality, it would
be impossible to teach, and impossible to ascertain that one has
properly grasped it. If that were the case, it is not simply that we
could not understand the lion, but that language use would itself be
impossible.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
Other related posts:
