Article published In: Integrating dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu and Adrian Pablé
[Language and Dialogue 8:1] 2018
► pp. 84–101
Abandoning the simple by disintegrating the sign?
Semiological reflections on Edda Weigand’s (meta)theory
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00006.pab
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00006.pab
Abstract
In this comparative paper I suggest that linguistic theories need to be discussed in terms of the metatheoretical presuppositions sustaining them. In view of Edda Weigand’s rejection of the linguistic sign and her critique of Roy Harris’ integrational linguistics for failing to abandon the sign as its working concept and not adopting a holistic model that accounts for the complexity of human communication, I will argue that the key to understanding linguistic theories is semiology, including tacitly assumed – since ‘commonsensical’ – beliefs about what constitutes ‘language’, ‘a language’ and ‘communication’ (i.e. the metatheory). I will further argue that methodological considerations are not the primary domain of semiology. This paper is designed (i) as an integrational critique of Weigand’s conception of human communication as intentional and intersubjective and (ii) as an affirmation that linguistic indeterminacy concerns both form and meaning.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The Harrisian object of study: communication
- 3.The Weigandian object of study: dialogic interaction
- 4.Harrisian and Weigandian semiologies compared
- 5.Afterword: humanizing linguistics?
References
References (14)
Harris, Roy. 1989. “The worst English in the world?” University of Hong Kong. Supplement to the Gazette 36 (1): 37–46.
. 2009. “The integrational conception of the sign.” Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008, 61–82. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.
Mackay, Rowan. 2016. “Goodish. Integrating integrationism.” Language and Communication 47(1): 89–93.
Orman, Jon. 2018. “Theorising the untheorisable. Notes on integrationism and the Mixed-Game Model.” Language and Dialogue 8(1): 102–117.
Pablé, Adrian. 2009. “The ‘dialect myth’ and socio-onomastics. The names of the castles of Bellinzona in an integrational perspective.” Language and Communication 29(2): 152–165.
Săftoiu, Răzvan and Adrian Toader. 2018. “The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns”. Language and Dialogue 8(1): 21–42.
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2012a. “The challenge of complexity. Body, mind and language in interaction.” In Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language, ed. by Ad Foolen et al., 383–406. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2012b. “Dialogue. Object and representation.” In (Re)presentations and Dialogue, ed. by François Cooren and Alain Létourneau, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2015. “Preface.” Language and Dialogue 5(3): 353–354.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Pablé, Adrian
Linell, Per
Orman, Jon
Weigand, Edda
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.