Mika Lähteenmäki

Between Relativism and Absolutism: Towards an Emergentist Definition of Meaning Potential

The dialogical ‘meaning as a potential’ approach can be seen as a critique of those mainstream theories of semantics and pragmatics which take for granted the idea that a linguistic expression has an invariant linguistic meaning or a semantic representation independent of actual situated language use.1 In dialogism, this view is rejected and a linguistic expression is considered as a relatively open meaning potential, that is, a multiplicity of possible meanings. Thus, a linguistic expression represents a meaning resource which attains a fixed and specific meaning only as a result of dialogical interaction between speaker and listener in a certain social context. It is noteworthy that, within a dialogical approach to language, there are slightly different views concerning the applicability of the notion of meaning potential. For instance, Per Linell (1998: 118) sees it first and foremost as an alternative model of lexical semantics, whereas R. Rommetveit’s (1988) ‘linguistic expressions’ seem to include both words and sentences.

On rules and rule-following: obeying rules blindly

Abstract The theoretical importance and explanatory value of ‘rules’ have frequently been questioned. This article discusses two different lines of criticism presented by the representatives of ethnomethodology and connectionism. It is argued that in both approaches a ‘rule’ is understood in a limited sense. Consequently their criticism does not give grounds to refute the notion of rules. The assumption that the later Wittgenstein proposes to reject ‘rules’ altogether can also be seen as mistaken. Wittgenstein attempts to dissolve the conceptual problems associated with the notion by considering it as praxis . His rule-considerations are compatible with an emergent approach to language, for they both reject rule-reification.

On the reception of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s linguistic ideas in the Soviet Union from the late 1920s to the early 1950s

The present article discusses the Soviet reception of Humboldt’s linguistic ideas, focusing on different interpretations of his ideas during the period between the latter half of the 1920s and the early 1950s. While Humboldt’s idea of the inner form of language was an important ingredient in Shpet’s phenomenology, the attitude towards Humboldt changed radically in the late 1920s and early 1930s when the ‘bolshevization’ of the sciences had reached linguistics. The idea that language, nation, and culture are closely interconnected was at odds with the ‘Marxist’ idea of class-language, according to which linguistic diversity derives from the socio-economic characteristics of societies. In the post-war context, Humboldt was seen as a key source of Anglo-American linguistics and linguistic relativism. The ways in which Humboldt was read and criticized in the Soviet Union reflect the upheavals that took place in the political and ideological climate of Soviet science.