Culioli après Benveniste : énonciation, langage, intégration

Vogüé, Sarah de

doi:10.3406/linx.1992.1238

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we will say that if, from an enunciative perspective language is similarly considered as a tool for conceptualizing the world, it is first and foremost a tool for interaction. 24 Here lies what has been analyzed by several authors (e.g., De Voguë, 1992) and by Culioli himself as the major source of divergence between Benveniste and Culioli; namely the clearer and crucial difference established by Culioli between the "speaker"/the "addressee" (who refer to human beings in actual contexts of utterance but not to abstract coordinates in the "Enunciation Domain") and what he theorized by contrast as "enunciator" and "co-enunciator." The Semiological Approach is on this aspect closer to Culioli. of the actual location of the interlocutors would block the possibility of a formal distinction between the 2 nd and 3 rd person.…”

Section: Enunciation and Deixis-anaphora: Key Role Of Eye-gazementioning

confidence: 77%

“… 24 Here lies what has been analyzed by several authors (e.g., De Voguë, 1992 ) and by Culioli himself as the major source of divergence between Benveniste and Culioli; namely the clearer and crucial difference established by Culioli between the “speaker”/the “addressee” (who refer to human beings in actual contexts of utterance but not to abstract coordinates in the “Enunciation Domain”) and what he theorized by contrast as “enunciator” and “co-enunciator.” The Semiological Approach is on this aspect closer to Culioli. …”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze

García

Sallandre

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We address the issue of deixis-anaphora in sign language (SL) discourse, focusing on the role of eye-gaze. According to the Semiological Approach, SL structuring stems from a maximum exploitation of the visuo-gestural modality, which results in two modes of meaning production, depending on the signer's semiotic intent. Involving both nonmanual and manual parameters, the first mode, expressing the intent to say while showing, uses constructions based on structures, the termed "transfer structures." The second one, expressing the intent to say without showing, involves lexical, pointing and fingerspelling units. In order to situate our descriptive concepts with respect to those used by SL linguists who, like us, adopt a cognitive-functionalist perspective, we expose a specific theoretical foundation of our approach, the "enunciation theories." The concept of "enunciation" is decisive for understanding the role of eye-gaze, as being at the foundation of deixis and the key vector of referential creation and tracking in SL discourse. "Enunciation" entails the opposition between "Enunciation" and "Utterance" Domains. The first links, as co-enunciators, the signer/speaker and his/her addressee, establishing them by the very "act of enunciation" as 1st and 2nd person. The second is internal to the discourse produced. Grounding on corpora of narratives in several SLs (some with no historical link), we illustrate this crucial role of eye-gaze and the diversity of functions it fulfills. Our analyses, carried out in this perspective, attest to the multiple structural similarities between SLs, particularly with regard to transfer structures. This result strongly supports the typological hypothesis underlying our approach, namely, that these structures are common to all SLs. We thus show that an enunciative analysis, based on the key role of eye-gaze in these visual languages that are SLs, is able to give the simplest account of their own linguistic economy and, in particular, of deixis-anaphora in these languages.

show abstract

Section: Enunciation and Deixis-anaphora: Key Role Of Eye-gazementioning

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze

García

Sallandre

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esse colocar em forma é produto do quê? Esse colocar em forma é parte de um processo mais amplo que aciona um conjunto de parâmetros abstratos internos à atividade de linguagem (VOGÜÉ, 1992). Nesse caso, a forma de expressão será entendida como o agenciamento de vestígios das operações realizadas na sua construção como resultado da atividade de linguagem dos sujeitos sobre o empírico.…”

Section: A Produção E O Reconhecimento Do Materials Simbólicounclassified

A especificidade linguística e não-linguística em articulação com a atividade de linguagem

Pria¹

2013

SIGNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apresentamos ao leitor uma reflexão sobre questões que nos são pertinentes há algum tempo sobre a atividade construtora de representações (atividade linguagem) e as representações construídas que configuram a diversidade de experiências (sujeitos) e de meios expressivos (sistemas semióticos). Dedicamos esforços para dialogar com outras identidades que optaram por caminhos outros na compreensão da especificidade linguística e não-linguística e na sua relação com a linguagem. Em nossa trajetória, articulamos essas especificidades com a atividade de linguagem como ponto de partida da nossa reflexão e a localizamos como a gênese da produção e do reconhecimento do material simbólico (empírico) que é a causa e o efeito do diálogo graças à função integradora de cada situação particular de diálogo e à função estruturante da noção e do domínio nocional. Ao final, oferecemos ao leitor um exercício que coloca em movimento a reflexão desenvolvida neste artigo.

show abstract

“… Voir Toutain 2012;2019. 18 Voir Tamba-Mecz 1984Normand 1986;1989;De Vogüé 1992;. 19 Voir Toutain 2012.…”

unclassified

Qu’est-ce qu’un problème linguistique?

Toutain

2021

Cahiers du CLSL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article s’attache à l’examen du problème du caractère logiquement présaussurien d’une linguistique chronologiquement post-saussurienne: le structuralisme. Nous nous efforçons ainsi de faire apparaître la radicale différence de problématiqueséparant la théorie saussurienne de la langue, étiologique, de sa réélaboration structuraliste, qui apparaît alors, par récurrence, «analytique», donc empirique. Nous nous attachons ensuite à mettre en évidence les enjeux des concepts saussuriens de système et de valeur, à savoir la rupture avec la représentation commune de la langue comme une entité et la théorisation du rapport son/sens constitutif du signe et de la langue, avant de proposer une explication de ce recouvrement de la rupture saussurienne par le structuralisme et une large part de la linguistique ultérieure.

show abstract

Culioli après Benveniste : énonciation, langage, intégration

Cited by 13 publications

References 2 publications

Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze

Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze

A especificidade linguística e não-linguística em articulação com a atividade de linguagem

Qu’est-ce qu’un problème linguistique?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About