5. SemiosisLanguage involves the simultaneous interpretation of its so-called spatial and temporal axes: paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. This corresponds to spatial perception insofar as spatial relations are perceived relative to the observer’s perspective, which emerges simultaneously from the very same space that is being observed. In each case, there is a continuum between spatial and temporal relations; a spatio-temporal continuum. Toward either end of the continuum, utterances become increasingly nonsensical. Consider, for example:
This sentence is as nonsensical as a visual scene of a distant object appearing to be supported by a near object, such as the tiny man standing on an outstretched hand in figure 2. Although the objects are suitably positioned to produce the illusion, we know that tiny men do not exist, just as “colourless green” does not exist. The gap in space between these two objects corresponds to the gap in meaning between these two words. Although they appear together, they do not belong together. The failure to make appropriate paradigmatic choices in language corresponds to the failure to perceive depth in space.
At the other end of the continuum, sentences are composed of words that are semantically connected, but poorly arranged. For example:
This sentence could be likened to a portrait that repositions facial features in bizarre, yet still face-like assemblages, such as in figure 3.
The elements seem to belong together, to the extent that they are semantically related. But, the syntagmatic relations between the various elements are distorted. The fact that it still resembles a face equates with the sequential alignment of words and the use of punctuation to form a sentence. Since (1) lacks spatial integrity and (2) lacks temporal integrity, they each sit at opposite ends of the spatio-temporal continuum, with (1) at the temporal end and (2) at the spatial end. Of course, spatial and temporal relations are usually deployed to produce sensible utterances, by interacting to varying degrees, as per the notion of a continuum. Chomsky suggests that the lack of meaning in a sentence like (1) proves that syntax is independent of meaning, because the syntactic patterns are coherent even when the meaning is not. But, the notion of a continuum challenges this postulate by representing syntax and lexicon as fundamentally interrelated. In fact, they are ontologically interrelated. One becomes situated in language, just as one becomes situated in space. Language structure is easier to visualise when syntax and lexicon are separated, just as everyday circumstances are easier to visualise when time and space are separated. The idea that language is a stream of coded information stems from the same ontological perspective that renders temporality as the passage of time. Previous : Next |
