THEORY: Re : THEORY: French Linguistic Thinking.

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 07/06/99 08:47:21  , Ed a =E9crit :

> Mathias,
> =20
>  This is all reminiscent of my readings of Umberto Eco's semiotic
>  theory.  He's not French, but he kept talking about Gremias and
>  "actantial roles." =20
i did not read his lingobooks but i know that's basically what i wrote on=20
this thread. i re-read my books this week-end and yes, i found out i just=20
re-wrote their theory in this thread. i find it very exciting that some of u=
s=20
find them "foreign". maybe basic linguistics are different from one country=20
to another as close as france and norway ! as for UE, this guy knows more=20
than he displays about the antique "parfait de langue" project (although he=20
is very verbous). i suspect he is a conlanger. what worries me is that he is=20
now an esperantist convert... ;-)

as for the actance roles, you can find your own ones yourself. they do exist=20
in a limited number, provided you un-aspectivize them (when you don't, they=20
grow hundreds). the problem is that they are very "down-to-earth" and even=20
"nitty-gritty" and all have an inverse form. for the first and last time=20
(because that's the kind of theory that makes you a geek in the eyes of=20
everyone ;-) i'll tell you some i've found :

first the active roles :
(1) to apply/to be applied an unmodified, active instrument modifying an=20
inactive actor (ax, mill)
(2) to apply/to be applied an unmodified, inactive instrument not modifying=20
an inactive actor (clothes, house, shield, gift, container)
(3) to apply/to be applied an unmodified, active instrument not modifying an=20
active actor (eye)
(4) to apply/to be applied an unmodified, active instrument not modifying an=20
active actor (way, boat, law, order)
(5) to apply/to be applied a modified instrument not modifying an active=20
actor (food, grist, firewood)
(6) to feature (head, parents)
(7) to grow (fruit)
(8) to produce/to result from  (flour)
(9) to work/to be used as (tool)
(10) to be the base of
(11) to depend from
(12) to wend
(13) to wend according to the pattern of
(14) to perform (match, blow, thought)
(15) to be located by
(16) to make (to cause to exist)
(17) to be made of (wood)
(18) to perceive (image, music)
(19) to be the reference for (to regard a topic)
(20) to compare with
(21) to extend as (as in : "it's 2-inch long")
(22) to posture as (to be flat, to fly)
(23) to source (a stolen item)
(and others i can't explain quite well but are very important)

and there are the attributive
(24) to "have" ("to be attributed something")
and equative
(25) to "be" (to pertain to the archetype category of)

but forget about them and pretend i did not write anything stupid like that=20
;-).

> Ever hear of the "Semiotic Square"? :)
never.

> =20
>  The first book on "linguistics" and theory of meaning that I ever
>  read was his _Theory of Semiotics,_ which I read with absolutely zero
>  background in the issues, just ploughing through it.  It was quite a
>  character building exercise.  And it made me look at all the
>  subsequent theorists I read (Chomsky, Quine and other philosophers,
>  then later on Lakoff and the Cognitive Semanticists) from quite an odd
>  point of view...
i quote bernard pottier in "linguistique g=E9n=E9rale - th=E9orie et descrip=
tion"=20
(1985) :

"that certain "schools" may have considered syntax as their essential concer=
n=20
is something incredible. common sense has eventually triumphed. european=20
semantics always existed, and this work aims at contributing to the=20
continuance thereof."
(my free translation)

mathias