Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:11:56.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Systems and Principles of Reconstruction in Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

T. V. Gamkrelidze  and
V. V. Ivanov
T. V. Gamkrelidze
Affiliation:
U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences
V. V. Ivanov
Affiliation:
U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Two levels can be distinguished in the structure of a language as a system of signs: the level of expression and the level of contents. Every sign of a language will thus be characterized by the unity of these two aspects. We can distinguish therein the signifying (.signans) and the signified (signatum), which correspond to the two levels of the language. Relations between the signifying and the signified in linguistic signs are determined by the relationship between their content and their expression. Relations between signs at the level of contents and at the level of expression are the cause of the complex nature of the linguistic sign.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 35 , Issue 137 , March 1987 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

Footnotes

*

The article translated here represents the essential aspects of the introduction to the two-volume work by T. B. Gramkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (in Russian), foreword by Roman Jakobson, University of Tbilissi, 1984.

References

Bartoli, M., Introduzione alla neolinguistica. Principi-Scopi-Metodi, Geneva, Olschki, 1925.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E., Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris, Gallimard, 1966.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, H., “Linguistic reconstruction: its potentials and limitations in a new perspective,” Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph No. 2, 1977.Google Scholar
* Gamkrelidze, T.V., “The Problem of “l'arbitraire du signe,” Language, Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 102–110, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, J.C., “On a possible interpretation of componential analysis in archaeology,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 67, No. 5, pt. 2, p. 9–22, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, J.C. Theoretitcheskaja arxeologija, Moscow, Progress, 1983.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L., “Principes de grammaire générale,” Det kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-fil Maddelelser, XVI, 1, Copenhagen, 1928.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H.M., Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Hockett, Ch F., A Course in Modern Linguistics, New York, Macmillan, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, V.V., “Problèmes des langues centum et sat am,” Questions de linguistique, No. 4, p. 12–23, 1958.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., “Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics,” Reports for the VIIth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1957.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. Selected Writings, I., 2nd enlarged edition, The Hague-Paris, Mouton, 1971.Google Scholar
* Kamenetzky, I.S., Marchak, B.I., Cher, Ja. A., Analysis of Archæological Sources, Moscow, Nauka (Science), 1975.Google Scholar
* Polivanov, Je D., Toward a Marxist Linguistics, Moscow. Federatsia, 1931.Google Scholar
Sapir, E., “Central and North American Languages,” Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality (Mandelbaum, D., ed.), Berkeley and Los Angeles, SAGE Publications, 1958.Google Scholar
De Saussure, F., Cours de linguistique générale, Paris, Payot, 1915.Google Scholar
Schlerath, B., “Ist ein Raum/Zeit-Modell für eine rekonstruierte Sprache möglich?”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, Bd. 95, H. 2, p. 175–202, 1981.Google Scholar
* Serebrennikov, B.A., Probabilist Arguments in Comparativism, Moscow, Nauka (Science), 1974.Google Scholar
* Stepanov, G.V., On the Problem of Linguistic Variability, Moscow, Nauka (Science), 1974.Google Scholar
* Tsereteli, G.V., “Linguistic Relationship and Linguistic Unions,” Questions de linguistique, 1968. No. 3, p. 3–18.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., “Is a Structural Dialectology Possible?”, Linguistics Today (A. Martinet and U. Weinreich, eds.), New York, 1954. p. 268–280.Google Scholar
* Titles of Russian works have been translated to facilitate understanding for the reader.Google Scholar