Earticle

초록

영어

This article does not deal with a theory or theories in the usual sense of the term but rather harks back to its etymological source, theorein ' to look at.' The phrase 'theory of language' thus purports a 'view of language' and does not carry the force of scientific explication of language. In fact, the word ' scientific' or 'science' per se originates from scire 'to know' and is here to be considered not so much in regard to some kind of positivistic methodology as a form of knowledge. If this exposition sounds unduly ingenious, that is because one is caught up in all kinds of presuppositions about the words under consideration. Sometimes, when we come to grips with an issue that strikes our mind as truly important, our language, by the light of which we hope to proceed safely, plays the will-o'-the-wisp instead and leaves us in the middle of a murky maze, twisting what was at first blush a mere cinch into a Gordian knot. On such occasions, etymology comes along the way and sends us back to itself as its own principle: Resort to etymos logos 'original, true word'! The main thrust of the present study is that alongside the quantitative, positivistic thought there is another equally valuable mode of qualitative and humanistic thinking that makes a whole gamut of new and concrete investigations possible, that an integrated theory of language is Possible by way of a happy amalgamation of diversified, humanistic views of language. With this idea as the leitmotif we explore two models of theory which typically set themselves up for a 'scientific' approach to language: analytic philosophy that delves into what it calls logical simples, and contemporary linguistics that stubbornly teeters around some formal rigor or other. It is argued that they are both characterized by a looking away from the fluid, ill-definable aspects of language, giving a preference to segments and isolated facts as a means to avoid those larger wholes and totalities which if they had to be seen would in the long run lead to an uncomfortable state of mind. Language, in the final analysis, is a Protean entity: so capricious and multifarious, and yet so noetic and prophetic, that we should catch sight of its picturesque images in their entirety to give form to an integrated theory of language.

목차

분석철학의 경우
 현대언어학의 경우
 언어, 영원한 프로테우스
 대통합 언어이론
 인용문헌
 abstract

저자

• 문경환 [ (연세대학교) ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  인문언어 [LINGUA HUMANITATIS]

• 간기

  반년간

• pISSN

  1598-2130

• 수록기간

  2000~2025

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 705 DDC 405