Summary

__Structuralism __ 

Concentrates on the form of language, which is construed as a series of signs that essentially function to communicate privately held thoughts from otherwise impenetrable individuated minds. Saussure set out to construct a coherent linguistic theory. Prior to this, views about what might be obtained in such an enterprise had tended to mirror the natural science's predominant vocabulary and paradigms at the time. He identified words as arbitrary signs, and speakers as being in acknowledged collusion about the uniformity of meaning of such signs, and the meaning implied by opposition of such signs. The bond between speakers was modelled on the social contract, which was still philosophically prevalent in the 19th century, having been inherited from Locke, Hobbes and especially Rousseau.

Bloomfield, in the early 20th century, was working on a similarly scientifically-targeted project with Native-American languages, heavily influenced by the then-dominant behaviourist movement in the human sciences. Rigorous methodology and the collection of huge amounts of observed data were characteristic of this kind of expedition. Such an abstraction reflects a diminished consideration of the role of meaning and social context. Such a view was based on the idea that meaning was referential, such that the proper object of empirical study would be the objects of reference.

At this point Chomsky steps in, objecting on many levels. He noted that data collection was doomed to produce arbitrary, unrepresentative results that would in turn be erroneous, misconstrued, and misunderstood. In any case, Chomsky maintained that language properly considered was in principle not accessible empirically (due to the infinite nature of possible utterances). One upshot was a change of focus from word-structure to sentence-structure. Another was the introduction of a computational model of mind and a resulting vocabulary of term heavily influenced by contemporary computer theory. Such views of humans as providing individuated, undiscoverable, inaccessible ‘minds’ that code and decode signs for input/output transmission have attracted criticism from many different areas. Not least because they often seem to sidestep explanations of consistency/diversity and how the system //en masse// is maintained (through conventions, rules etc.).  __The Social Model __  Unsurprisingly, alternative views that reject this autonomous view of language, and of people as sign-processors, emerged. The idea that language could not be separated from the culture in which it functioned was central. Speaking became just one of a long list of socio-cultural ‘meaningful do-ings’. At this time Anthropologists were painting a picture of language as being embedded is an immensely complex web of socio-cultural factors. One example from the British tradition is the work of Halliday, who attempted to provide a framework for understanding the combined role of context and language in meaning, in terms of Field, Tenor and Mode.  __The Postmodern Model __  The postmodernists seek to incorporate the implications of wider findings and understanding into our field. The idea of structure itself has been radically overhauled in areas from quantum theory to Euclidean geometry. This widening of application has been especially prevalent with respect to the extent to which we interpret constituents of culture as signs. As such, the boundary between language and non-language has been exposed by this wider semiotic view as untenable.   <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">__Structuralism__ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">

Concentrates on the form of language, which is construed as a series of signs that essentially function to communicate privately held thoughts from otherwise impenetrable individuated minds. Saussure set out to construct a coherent linguistic theory. Prior to this, views about what might be obtained in such an enterprise had tended to mirror the natural science's predominant vocabulary and paradigms at the time. He identified words as arbitrary signs, and speakers as being in acknowledged collusion about the uniformity of meaning of such signs, and the meaning implied by opposition of such signs. The bond between speakers was modelled on the social contract, which was still philosophically prevalent in the 19th century, having been inherited from Locke, Hobbes and especially Rousseau.

Bloomfield, in the early 20th century, was working on a similarly scientifically-targeted project with Native-American languages, heavily influenced by the then-dominant behaviourist movement in the human sciences. Rigorous methodology and the collection of huge amounts of observed data were characteristic of this kind of expedition. Such an abstraction reflects a diminished consideration of the role of meaning and social context. Such a view was based on the idea that meaning was referential, such that the proper object of empirical study would be the objects of reference.

At this point Chomsky steps in, objecting on many levels. He noted that data collection was doomed to produce arbitrary, unrepresentative results that would in turn be erroneous, misconstrued, and misunderstood. In any case, Chomsky maintained that language properly considered was in principle not accessible empirically (due to the infinite nature of possible utterances). One upshot was a change of focus from word-structure to sentence-structure. Another was the introduction of a computational model of mind and a resulting vocabulary of term heavily influenced by contemporary computer theory. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Such views of humans as providing individuated, undiscoverable, inaccessible ‘minds’ that code and decode signs for input/output transmission have attracted criticism from many different areas. Not least because they often seem to sidestep explanations of consistency/diversity and how the system //en masse// is maintained (through conventions, rules etc.). <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">__The Social Model__ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Unsurprisingly, alternative views that reject this autonomous view of language, and of people as sign-processors, emerged. The idea that language could not be separated from the culture in which it functioned was central. Speaking became just one of a long list of socio-cultural ‘meaningful do-ings’. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">At this time Anthropologists were painting a picture of language as being embedded is an immensely complex web of socio-cultural factors. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">One example from the British tradition is the work of Halliday, who attempted to provide a framework for understanding the combined role of context and language in meaning, in terms of Field, Tenor and Mode. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">__The Postmodern Model__ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The postmodernists seek to incorporate the implications of wider findings and understanding into our field. The idea of structure itself has been radically overhauled in areas from quantum theory to Euclidean geometry. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">This widening of application has been especially prevalent with respect to the extent to which we interpret constituents of culture as signs. As such, the boundary between language and non-language has been exposed by this wider semiotic view as untenable. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">