scholarly journals O clima da época em torno do conceito de discurso na gramática de Port-Royal

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (48) ◽  
pp. 304-314
Author(s):  
Roberta Soares Paiva
Keyword(s):  

Este artigo pretende traçar o clima da época para o conceito de discurso na Gramática de Port-Royal (GPR) quanto ao que se pensava no século XVII sobre o “bom uso” da língua, delimitando a relevância desse texto fundador (COLOMBAT; FOURNIER; PUECH, 2010) no panorama da História das Ideias sobre a Linguagem. Publicada em 1660, a GPR tornou-se famosa por ser considerada um trabalho pioneiro na área da Filosofia da Linguagem. Seus autores pretendiam propor um estudo filosófico e racional da linguagem. A GPR contrastava com a tônica dos estudos linguísticos da época, sintonizados com a preocupação acerca da questão do “bom uso” (bon usage) da língua, compreendido meramente em termos estilísticos. Tal recorte se mostrou necessário devido à generalidade com a qual se investia o conceito de discurso, visto como sinônimo de fala/uso, que deve ser regulado por regras, e influenciou o referencial teórico da Gramática Gerativo-Transformacional de Noam Chomsky.

The idea that all languages show affinities in their organisation, and particularly in grammar, is not a new one. It arguably originates in the thought of Plato and Aristotle, and manifests in medieval scholastic philosophy, in the 17th-century Port-Royal grammarians, and in modern linguistic theory. In modern linguistics, the concept of a universal set of structural principles that underlies the superficial grammatical diversity of the world’s languages has been most influentially developed by Noam Chomsky. The primary goal of this Handbook is to provide an overview and guide to this aspect of Chomsky’s thinking, to set Chomsky’s ideas in context, to look at their motivation, and to consider their implications. The Handbook is divided into five parts. Part I deals with the philosophical questions related to Universal Grammar (UG), Part II deals with general questions of linguistic theory, Part II with language acquisition, Part IV with comparative syntax and Part V with wider issues.


1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-433
Author(s):  
HERBERT H. CLARK
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


Author(s):  
Simon Morgan Wortham

This chapter evaluates the question of the ‘complex’ in a range of scientific, political and psychoanalytic contexts, asking not only where lines of connection and demarcation occur among specific distributions of meaning, value, theory and practice; but also probing the psychoanalytic corpus, notably Freud’s writings on the notion of a ‘complex’, in order to reframe various implications of the idea that this term tends to resist its own utilisation as both an object and form of analysis. This section establishes connections between three sets of theoretical questions: the common practice of describing modernity and its wake in terms of a drive towards increasing complexity; the meaning and cultural legacy of phrases such as ‘military-industrial complex’ and sundry derivations in the political sphere; and the intricacies and ambiguities subtending the term ‘complex’ within psychoanalytic theory. As a concept that Freud both utilised and repudiated, the provocative power of the term ‘complex’ is linked to the way it thwarts various attempts at systemization (providing nonetheless an apparatus of sorts through which contemporary science, Slavoj Žižek, Noam Chomsky, Freud, Eisenhower, and post-war politics can be articulated to one another).


1984 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Claude Pariente
Keyword(s):  

1997 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-165
Author(s):  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
David Barsamian
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document