Eva Krásová: Émile Benveniste and the role of sens My thesis "Émile Benveniste and the role ... more Eva Krásová: Émile Benveniste and the role of sens My thesis "Émile Benveniste and the role of sens" is a monographic study of the life work of Émile Benveniste (1902-1977) through the role that the concept of meaning (sens) takes in his thought. I adopt the methodology defined by K. Kœrner as "historiography of language sciences", and thus my perspective on Benveniste's work is mainly chronological and developmental. First part of the thesis concentrates on theoretical foundations of Benveniste's thought in the school of Paris (A. Meillet and M. Bréal), Prague (R. Jakobson and V. Skalička) and Copenhagen (texts around 1939). I point out the concept of language system in diachrony in A. Meillet's thinking and in Prague school and present a hypothesis about the role of Émile Bneveniste in their contact during the International congresses of linguists. This results into a description of the perspective of meaning as it was presented in Benveniste's ...
The article examines the debate on the arbitrariness of linguistic sign, which took place between... more The article examines the debate on the arbitrariness of linguistic sign, which took place between 1939–1949, mostly in Acta linguistica in Copenhagen, and was provoked by Émile Benveniste's article " The nature of the linguistic sign " (1939). I deal with Benveniste's three main statements: (1) that the thesis of the arbitrariness of linguistic sign is in contradiction with the formality of language, (2) that the relationship between signifiant and signifié is in fact necessary, and (3) the consequences of the latter for the radical relativity of linguistic values. These three positions are contextualized and examined in the frame of the Copenhagen School's conception of linguistics and its place among other sciences. I then observe how the problem was formulated by Benveniste's predecessors E. Pichon and J. Damourette (1927, 1937) and examine the debate occurring after the publication of Benveniste's article, which, in addition to the editors of the Course in General Linguistics, included E. Lerch, A. Gardiner. E. Buyssens, N. Ege and A. Martinet. Their positions and criticisms are summarized and evaluated in the scope of the contemporary state of research based on the manuscript sources for the Course.
Eva Krásová: Émile Benveniste and the role of sens My thesis "Émile Benveniste and the role ... more Eva Krásová: Émile Benveniste and the role of sens My thesis "Émile Benveniste and the role of sens" is a monographic study of the life work of Émile Benveniste (1902-1977) through the role that the concept of meaning (sens) takes in his thought. I adopt the methodology defined by K. Kœrner as "historiography of language sciences", and thus my perspective on Benveniste's work is mainly chronological and developmental. First part of the thesis concentrates on theoretical foundations of Benveniste's thought in the school of Paris (A. Meillet and M. Bréal), Prague (R. Jakobson and V. Skalička) and Copenhagen (texts around 1939). I point out the concept of language system in diachrony in A. Meillet's thinking and in Prague school and present a hypothesis about the role of Émile Bneveniste in their contact during the International congresses of linguists. This results into a description of the perspective of meaning as it was presented in Benveniste's ...
The article examines the debate on the arbitrariness of linguistic sign, which took place between... more The article examines the debate on the arbitrariness of linguistic sign, which took place between 1939–1949, mostly in Acta linguistica in Copenhagen, and was provoked by Émile Benveniste's article " The nature of the linguistic sign " (1939). I deal with Benveniste's three main statements: (1) that the thesis of the arbitrariness of linguistic sign is in contradiction with the formality of language, (2) that the relationship between signifiant and signifié is in fact necessary, and (3) the consequences of the latter for the radical relativity of linguistic values. These three positions are contextualized and examined in the frame of the Copenhagen School's conception of linguistics and its place among other sciences. I then observe how the problem was formulated by Benveniste's predecessors E. Pichon and J. Damourette (1927, 1937) and examine the debate occurring after the publication of Benveniste's article, which, in addition to the editors of the Course in General Linguistics, included E. Lerch, A. Gardiner. E. Buyssens, N. Ege and A. Martinet. Their positions and criticisms are summarized and evaluated in the scope of the contemporary state of research based on the manuscript sources for the Course.
Uploads
Papers by Eva Krásová