Ok Warren,
I don't want to go on in discussing such silly thing as if I said or
not that deixis 'originated' in linguistics, above all because I didn't
care of the origin of 'deixis' within my message, but only of the fact
that most of people using deixis refer to the features of it developed
in linguistics and psycholinguistics. I expressed my thoughts in a bad
way, excuse me Warren, I know my competence of english is quite far from
being good.
For what concerns Buehler I meant that its tension in outgoing from
mentalism (i.e. against Cartesianism) remained anyway caged within the
same old philosophical assumtpion which are at the basis of Cartesianism
too, i.e. the old identity model.
Best regards,
Paolo
__________
MCCWBUCK wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:42:13 +0200 "Dr. Paolo Teobaldelli (TB Export
> Office)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Warren says I told that deixis originated in linguistics[1].
> > I don't remember of having said anything like this,
>
> Well, let me remind you then. On June 15th you wrote:
>
> "but as I hear 'deictic' I go really crazy, because I'm really tired of
> reading cultural works where (also good) scholars apply this
> *linguistic* [emphasis added] terminology to wider fields. What I
> cannot bear is that most of people do not reflect on these categories
> before to use them".
>
> So, yes, Paolo does identify deixis as a category originating in
> linguistics, a category which - according to his statement above -
> is then applied to other cultural domains. If Paolo is now saying
> that deixis does not originate in linguistics, then why does he
> write that he is "really tired of reading cultural works where
> (also good) scholars apply this linguistic terminology to wider
> fields ..."? Why identify deixis in the above statement as
> "linguistic terminology"?
>
> After all, the whole point of his criticism is that he goes
> crazy and is tired of reading critics apply linguistic terminology
> to wider fields. Now he seems to be saying (as I do) that deixis
> does not originate in linguistics, so does this mean that he is no
> longer tired of reading in my original e-mail the use of the term
> 'deixis'? For if it isn't a linguistic concept (as I argued all
> along), then he has nothing to be tired of. His original criticism
> of me is simply invalid, because I'm not, after all, applying
> "linguistic terminology to wider fields."
>
> On a more positive and constructive note, Paolo writes that
>
> "the key is in the abandoning of a pure human/world relationship
> trying to conceive the knowing relationship as a complex
> relationship ofinter-exchange between human and world. In this
> sense it seems to me that filmseeing is not something as a mere
> perception of something which causes some reactions (the
> oriented-imagining) but a communicational event, where a
> relational space between a filmic text and humans is
> created."
>
> Paolo criticises Buehler for conceiving the relation between
> humans and world as direct and unmediated. I assume he is
> criticisng Buehler for being too Cartesian, for only perceiving a
> relation between the eye and mind, thereby separating both from
> the body. But Buehler thought of orientation in space in terms of
> the individual's tactile body image, so he avoids the charge of
> Cartesianism to some extent. Nonetheless, it may be more fruitful
> to look at the references Paolo gave, or even to the cognitive
> semantics of George Lakoff (_Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_
> (1987) and Mark Johnson (_The Body in the Mind_ (1987), or Thomas
> Sebeok's notion of the biosemiotic self (see, for example his
> _An Introduction to Semiotics_ (1994), esp. pp. 11-12 and 122-23).
>
> Warren Buckland
> Liverpool John Moores University
> Dean Walters Building
> St James Road
> Liverpool
> L1 7BR
> ENGLAND.
>
> +44 (0)151 231 5111
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|