TY - JOUR

T1 - A Part Outside the Whole?

T2 - To Anton Zimmerling’s article “Really: Syntactics Without Semiotics?”

AU - Чебанов, Сергей Викторович

N1 - Chebanov, S. V. A Part Outside the Whole? (To Anton Zimmerling's article “Really: Syntactics Without Semiotics?”) // Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – 2025. – Vol. 95, No. 1. – P. 61-68. – DOI 10.1134/S1019331625600830.

PY - 2025/2/15

Y1 - 2025/2/15

N2 - Before delving into the connections between linguistics and semiotics, it is essential to establish a clear demarcation between these fields, which necessitates a precise definition of each subject. However, the approach taken by Anton Zimmerling in this regard is subject to debate. For instance, in the discussion ofsemiotics, the focus tends to lean towards interpretations that recognize the dual understanding of signs, while unilateral conceptions of signs are often overlooked. Linguistics is typically confined to the study of language itself, and the treatment of linguistics concerning speech (text) is often seen as a concealed branch of philology. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the distinction between language and speech pertains to linguistics or philology. This ambiguity extends to the status of linguistic pragmatics. To address this issue constructively,it is useful to differentiate between five concepts encompassing language and speech: hermeneutics, philology, linguistics, semiotics, and pragmalinguistics. Each of these concepts delineates a specific ontology and corresponding methodological approach. By considering them as orthogonal axes within a fan matrix, one can identify 25 possible approaches for studying speech, including those that are currently employed and potential ones. Within this framework, philological linguistics, as discussed by Zimmerling, finds its place,and the transitions of scholars like Witzany from biohermeneutics to biopragmalinguistics and Ongstad’s shift from philology become more comprehensible.

AB - Before delving into the connections between linguistics and semiotics, it is essential to establish a clear demarcation between these fields, which necessitates a precise definition of each subject. However, the approach taken by Anton Zimmerling in this regard is subject to debate. For instance, in the discussion ofsemiotics, the focus tends to lean towards interpretations that recognize the dual understanding of signs, while unilateral conceptions of signs are often overlooked. Linguistics is typically confined to the study of language itself, and the treatment of linguistics concerning speech (text) is often seen as a concealed branch of philology. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the distinction between language and speech pertains to linguistics or philology. This ambiguity extends to the status of linguistic pragmatics. To address this issue constructively,it is useful to differentiate between five concepts encompassing language and speech: hermeneutics, philology, linguistics, semiotics, and pragmalinguistics. Each of these concepts delineates a specific ontology and corresponding methodological approach. By considering them as orthogonal axes within a fan matrix, one can identify 25 possible approaches for studying speech, including those that are currently employed and potential ones. Within this framework, philological linguistics, as discussed by Zimmerling, finds its place,and the transitions of scholars like Witzany from biohermeneutics to biopragmalinguistics and Ongstad’s shift from philology become more comprehensible.

KW - semiotics, philological linguistics, non-philological linguistics, hermeneutics, philology, pragma linguistics, fan matrices, Witzany, Ongstad, biosemiotics

U2 - 10.1134/S1019331625600830

DO - 10.1134/S1019331625600830

M3 - a remark in the discussion

VL - 95

SP - 61

EP - 68

JO - Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

JF - Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

SN - 1019-3316

IS - 1

ER -