화이트헤드의 언어 이해와 상징적 연관

문창옥 국제언어인문학회 2004 인문언어 Vol.6 No.-

Whitehead's discussion of language is not to be found in any one book or article. It is interwoven with his discussion of many other questions. He was, however, greatly concerned with the problem of symbolism in general and the uses of language. He regards language, spoken or written, as an instrument devised by men to aid them in their adjustment to the environment in which they live. Language is used for many specific purposes in the process of this adjustment. Words are employed not only to refer to data and to express emotions. They may be used also to record experiences, and thoughts about these experiences. Words also function as instruments in the organization of experiences as they are considered in retrospect. Thus words free us from the bondage of the immediate.And Whitehead's theory of meaning is implicit in his discussion of the functions of language. According to him, the human mind is functioning symbolically when some components of its experience elicit consciousness, beliefs, emotions, and usages, respecting other components of its experiences. The former set of components are the 'symbols', and the latter set constitute the 'meaning' of the symbols. Whitehead points out that one word may have several meanings, i.e. refer to several different data. In order to understand, thus, the meaning to which a word refers, it is sometimes very important to appreciate the system of thought within which a person is operating. Further, Whitehead's discussion of language includes a number of cogent warning the deficiencies of language, and hence the need for great care in the use of words. In fact, language developed gradually. For the most part we have created words designed to deal with practical problems. Attention focuses on the prominent features in a situation, in particular the changing aspects of things. With reference to such data our words are relatively adequate. However, this issues in an unfortunate superficiality. The enduring, the subtle, the complex and the general aspects of the universe do not have adequate verbal representation. For this reason, Whitehead's position concerning the uses of language in speculative philosophy is stated with pungent directness. The uncritical trust in the adequacy of language is one of the main errors to which philosophy is liable. Since ordinary language does not do justice to the generalities, profundities and complexities of life, it is obvious that philosophy requires new words and phrases, or at least the revision of familiar words and phrases. Proceeding to develop the theme Whitehead contends that words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage. In the same vein Whitehead refers to the need to realize that language which is the tool of philosophy needs to be redesigned just as in physical science available physical apparatus needs to be redesigned. But even these words and phrases, stretched or redesigned, are never completely adequate in philosophical speculations. They are, in his opinion, merely a great improvement over ordinary language or the language science, mathematics or symbolic logic.

Marxism, Language, and Literature: Rethinking the Early Marxist Literary Criticism

이준영 한국외국어대학교 영미연구소 2014 영미연구 Vol.30 No.-

Since both literature and language pay decisive concerns to human beings, an attempt to define language inevitably accompanies the definition of literature to a considerable extent. Therefore, it has been taken for granted that the problem of language should serve as a formulating impact to most contemporary theories of literary criticism. In case of Marxist criticism, however, there seems to be a longstanding consensus that language has been peripheral to its main praxis of literary criticism. This oversimplified consensus has not been gained from precise and meticulous studies on Marxism but from prejudices against the widely condemned dogmatism in some branches of Marxism, especially the doctrine of socialist realism in the Soviet tenet. However, if we follow the transition faithfully in the thought of language in Marxism from the mid 19th-century initial stage of Marx and Engels to the early 20th-century developing stage of V. N. Volosinov and critics of Russian Formalism, it is possible to track down the genuine and substantial discourses of language even in the early tradition of Marxism. If a literary theory of Marxism is built around the philosophy of language, it is also able to surpass the textual limitations of Formalism as well as dogmatism by way of bridging literary texts over socio‐historical and economic conditions of the world. Therefore, after discussing the early thoughts of language in Marxism, including those of Marx and Engels, and Russian Formalism, this paper presents Volosinov's philosophy of language as a significant case of the literary theory of Marxism. The significance of Volosinov’s philosophy of language, which is fundamentally faithful to the original thoughts of Marx and Engels, can be found in its productive effort to achieve the dialogic synthesis that goes beyond the conflicting impasse between the asocial poetics of pure formalism and the dogmatic literary criticism of the vulgar Marxism. The specificity of literature lies in its language‐ not as a language of self-sustained static system, but as a language of a practical activity, that is, as a specific form of practical consciousness inseparable from all social material activities. Therefore, the language of literature is also a particular form of socio-historical language. In this regard, Volosinov’s philosophy of language, which inherited the critical consciousness of Marx and Engels’s thoughts of language than any other theories, deserves to be reconsidered by many critics of contemporary literary criticism.

Marxism, Language, and Literature: Rethinking the Early Marxist Literary Criticism

Jun Young Lee 한국외국어대학교 영미연구소 2014 영미연구 Vol.30 No.-

Since both literature and language pay decisive concerns to human beings, an attempt to define language inevitably accompanies the definition of literature to a considerable extent. Therefore, it has been taken for granted that the problem of language should serve as a formulating impact to most contemporary theories of literary criticism. In case of Marxist criticism, however, there seems to be a longstanding consensus that language has been peripheral to its main praxis of literary criticism. This oversimplified consensus has not been gained from precise and meticulous studies on Marxism but from prejudices against the widely condemned dogmatism in some branches of Marxism, especially the doctrine of socialist realism in the Soviet tenet. However, if we follow the transition faithfully in the thought of language in Marxism from the mid 19th-century initial stage of Marx and Engels to the early 20th-century developing stage of V. N. Volosinov and critics of Russian Formalism, it is possible to track down the genuine and substantial discourses of language even in the early tradition of Marxism. If a literary theory of Marxism is built around the philosophy of language, it is also able to surpass the textual limitations of Formalism as well as dogmatism by way of bridging literary texts over socio-historical and economic conditions of the world. Therefore, after discussing the early thoughts of language in Marxism, including those of Marx and Engels, and Russian Formalism, this paper presents Volosinov's philosophy of language as a significant case of the literary theory of Marxism. The significance of Volosinov's philosophy of language, which is fundamentally faithful to the original thoughts of Marx and Engels, can be found in its productive effort to achieve the dialogic synthesis that goes beyond the conflicting impasse between the asocial poetics of pure formalism and the dogmatic literary criticism of the vulgar Marxism. The specificity of literature lies in its language- not as a language of self-sustained static system, but as a language of a practical activity, that is, as a specific form of practical consciousness inseparable from all social material activities. Therefore, the language of literature is also a particular form of socio-historical language. In this regard, Volosinov's philosophy of language, which inherited the critical consciousness of Marx and Engels's thoughts of language than any other theories, deserves to be reconsidered by many critics of contemporary literary criticism.

비트겐슈타인의 지시적 정의와 언어놀이

임윤정 대동철학회 2010 大同哲學 Vol.50 No.-

비트겐슈타인의 철학은 논리철학논고와 철학적 탐구를 기준으로 하여 전기와 후기로 대분된다. 그의 철학에 있어 상이하다고 평가되는 전기와 후기를 관통하는 일관적인 특징이 있다. 그것은 철학은 이론이 아니라 활동이라고 간주하고 있는 점과 철학적 성과가 철학적 명제의 명료화에 있다고 보는 점이다. 철학적 문제들은 언어에 대한 오해에서 비롯되기 때문에 활동으로서의 철학은 언어비판이라는 생각 또한 유지된다. 그래서 이제 그의 철학의 과업은 언어를 명료하게 하는 것이 되었다. 그의 전기 언어관은 “그림 이론”으로 설명될 수 있는데, 여기에서의 언어는 단순하고, 확정적인 것으로 이해되었다. 반면 그의 후기 언어관에서는 일상 언어의 분석에 집중했는데, 특히 언어의 사용에 집중했다. 비트겐슈타인의 전기 언어관을 설명하는데 있어 지시적 정의 개념을 아는 일은 매우 중요하다. 그래서 본고에서는 먼저 지시적 정의와 지시적 가르침 등에 대해 언급하였다. 그 방법이 낱말의 의미를 가르치는데 있어 잘못된 방법이라고 단정할 수는 없으나, 낱말의 실제 사용에 있어서 충분한 방법이 아님을 알 수 있다. 그래서 후기 비트겐슈타인은 언어(놀이)의 사용에 집중한다. 언어는 다양하다. 이러한 다양한 언어들의 유사성을 규칙성에서 찾았다. 비트겐슈타인은 규칙을 훈련을 통해 배울 수 있다고 한다. 본고에서는 다음과 같은 내용들을 다루었다. 먼저 1) 지시적 정의에 대해 설명하고 문제점을 지적하였다. 2) 언어놀이의 다양성과 가족 유사성에 대해 알아보았다. 지시적 정의로 낱말의 의미를 가르치는 데 있어서 부족한 측면을 언어놀이를 통해서는 설명할 수 있다고 보기 때문이다. 3) 언어-낱말-의 의미가 확정적이고 고정적으로 형성되는 것이 아니라 그 사용을 알 때 그 의미를 알 수 있기 때문에 언어의 사용을 훈련이라는 개념과 연관 지어 고찰하였다. 4) 언어의 사용을 안다는 것은 그 규칙을 아는 것이기에 언어 사용의 규칙에 대해 알아보았다. 5) 마지막으로 지시적 정의가 어떤 다른 교육과의 결합 하에서 긍정적인 결과를 가져올 수 있다고 가정한 후, 그에 해당하는 몇 가지 사례들을 어린이 철학교육의 사례들에서 찾아 제시하였다. Wittgenstein's intellectual life is divided into two periods : his earlier representative writing is "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and his later one is "Philosophical Investigations". There are both similar and different features in these two books. A common feature, philosophy is not the theory but the activity. And problems in philosophy result from a misunderstanding of language. Thus the object of philosophy become the critique of the language. His later philosophy is said as "use theory". And according to the Investigations, Wittgenstein's main object was the analysis of ordinary language, the use of language. It is significant to understand the concept of a ostensive definition to explain Wittgenstein’s early view on language. Therefore, this paper focuses on the ostensive definition and indication. Although his method to find out meanings of words is not said to be wrong, it was not sufficient to be applied to the actual use of words. So, Wittgenstein’s later view on language focuses on use of language (game). Language has various aspects. Wittgenstein found the various similarities of language in their patterns, which he argues can be learned by their rules. This paper examines the following points: First, the ostensive definition is explained and their problems are pointed out. And then, diversity of language -game and its similarity are examined. Since meanings of language-word- are not definitened fixed, to know its meaning, the context must be examined. Therefore, second, use of language is understood by connecting a concept, training. Third, to know use of language means to know its rules, and thus, rules of language usage is explored. Lastly, given the fact that ostensive definition creates positive results by being combined with other education fields, several case studies that reflect that proposition in philosophy education for children are presented.

발터 벤야민의 언어철학 고찰 : 미메시스 개념을 중심으로

오형엽(Hyung-yup, Oh) 어문연구학회 2009 어문연구 Vol.61 No.-

This writing investigated Bengamin's Language-Philosophy through main concepts of 'Adam's language' 'magic' 'translation' 'purity language' 'similarity' including 'mimesis' concept after examining historic unfolding of 'theory of mimesis' on the whole. 'Mimesis' have often defined as Greece original word of imitation or representation. 'Theory of imitation' have been spreaded by three divisions of Plato order's imitation theory, Aristotle order's imitation theory, typical imitation of literary model generally in history of West Europe criticism. 'Theory of imitation' and 'theory of expression' have formed two of the best of literary theory. When realism confirmed in 19th century develops realism in 20th century, 'theory of imitation' is spreaded to concept called 'reflection'. Realism theory that present by K. Marx · V. I. Lenin · G. Lukacs presents 'type' and 'reflection' as concrete creative writing method. Mimesis concept is embossed to central area in epistemology as well as esthetics by Th. W. Adorno since G. Lukacs. Walter Benjamin examines closely special quality of language theologically in About General Language and Human's Language(1916), presents concept of 'magic' 'name language' 'Adam's language'. Benjamin insists not language means of transmission but it is medium, that is, essence, and connects this with 'directness' and 'magic'. 'Directness' and 'magic' of language result from in special quality of 'Name language' that human designates things. Benjamin's basic language historical view is historical view of depravity that instinctive purity of 'purity language' 'name language' is spoiled. Benjamin presents concept of 'translation' 'purity language' in About General Language and Human's Language(1916). 'Mutually translation possibility' premises that objectivity of translation was warranted on God inside. Language of thins can enter through only translation into language of realization and name. Benjamin wished to examine closely problem of 'translation possibility' again as terminology 'close relation' 'purity language' in Translator's Task(1923). 'close relation' can not be defined through identify of origin. Task of translation is work which express that original work indicate by insufficient language and not copy of original work. Benjamin examines closely about 'similarity' 'mimesis capability' in Theory of Similarity(1933). He investigates 'mimesis capability' in view of ontogeny and phylogeny. 'Play' of children shows textbook of mimesis capability in view of ontogeny, and 'astrology' becomes good example in view of phylogeny. Natural objects maintain a kind of magic correspondence relation corresponding with human's mimesis capability, special quality of this is 'nonsensual similarity'. Imitation attitude starts at onomatopoeia in language creation, and the special quality appears well in 'graphology', So, character and language becomes a library of nonsensual similarity, nonsensual correspondence relations. Benjamin Insert emblem 'to read that is not written' in About Mimesis Capability(1933), condensing humans of beginning of the world reading conduct that been described in Theory of Similarity(1933). Benjamin Present human's mimesis capability regards to remnants of past great coercion. Word called 'Coercion' is connection of seedling with 'suppression' is Freud's psychanalysis terminology. While Benjamin is emphasizing magic of beginning of the world that nonsensual similarity, or mimesis capabili쇼 has, and this magic is exerting force in modern symbolic language in Theory of Similarity (1933), he present mimesis capability shows to divide it's magic of modern symbolic language in some degree bearing as recognize that is past remnants in About Mimesis Capability (1933).

내적 감각의 언어게임

이재숭(Lee, Jae-soong) 새한철학회 2016 哲學論叢 Vol.84 No.2

『탐구』의 비트겐슈타인에 있어서 언어의 진정한 의미는 다양한 맥락과 상황에 따라 그것이 사용되는 다양한 언어 게임 속에서 드러난다. 그리고 언어사용에 대한 정당화는 언어 사용자가 공동체의 구성원들과 일치해서 규칙에 따라 사용할 때 획득되는 것이다. 따라서 언어 사용자가 임의적이고 사적인 방식으로 규칙에 따라서 자신의 사적이며 내적인 감각을 기술하는 것은 불가능하다. 이에 대한 비트겐슈타인의 논의가 이른바‘사적 언어논증’이다. 데카르트 이래로 많은 철학자들은 사적 언어의 가능성을 주장해 왔다. 하지만 비트겐슈타인은 ‘사적 언어논증’을 통해 사적 언어 그 자체로는 어떠한 의미도 가질 수 없으며, 내적인 감각을 지시하는 언어(감각 언어)는 공적인 사용을 위한 훈련과 학습을 통해 실천의 맥락으로 들어올 때 하나의 언어게임으로 가능할 수 있고, 유의미하게 의사소통 될 수 있음을 보여주고 있다. The true meaning of language in later Wittgenstein’s philosophy is revealed in a variety of language games in which it is used according to different contexts and situations. And the justification for the use of language is obtained when one use a language in accordance with rules, in conformity with the community members. Therefore, it is impossible for language user to describe his own private and inner sensation with a any arbitrary and private rules. This Wittgenstein’s discussion of inner sensations is so-called ‘private language argument’. Since Descartes, many philosophers have argued the possibility of private language. However, through private language argument, Wittgenstein argued that private language itself can not have any meaning, and showed that the language indicating one’s inner sensations, sensation language, can function as a language game when it comes in the context of practice through learning.

발터 벤야민의 정치철학을 위한 몇 가지 초석: 언어, 주체, 진리, 기술 개념을 중심으로

하선규 한국미학예술학회 2022 美學·藝術學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

Walter Benjamin’s life and writings were thoroughly political. Therefore, if one is to reconstruct his “latent” political philosophy, this must encompass his entire work. In this article, I would like to limit the subject and focus on some cornerstones for his political philosophy. These are language, subject, truth, and technology. For Benjamin, language is the object and medium of philosophical thought. In particular, the objective and sober language of critics describing the Idea of the art form itself becomes an ethical and political act. Also, the critic’s language to describe the Idea is the absolute and fundamental domain where the subject-object schema and the common notion about the subject lose all validity. The philosophical truth that Benjamin seeks is not the truth as a neutral fact, but the truth of political practice that always intervenes in concrete socio-political contexts. In Benjamin’s philosophy, technology is a core category of his historical-materialist philosophy of art and historical perception theory. A philosophy of art that does not delve deeply into literary-artistic techniques runs the risk of becoming a reactionary ideology. The aim of this article is to show that Benjamin’s philosophical thinking about language, subject, truth, and technology is intrinsically related to political practice. 발터 벤야민의 삶과 저작은 철두철미 정치적이었다. 따라서 만약 그의 ‘잠재된’ 정치철학을 재구성하고자 한다면, 이 작업은 그의 전 저작을 포괄하지 않을 수 없다. 필자는 이 글에서 논의 대상을 한정하여 그의 정치철학을 위한 몇 가지 초석들에 초점을 맞추고자 한다. 이들은 언어, 주체, 진리, 기술이다. 벤야민에게 언어는 철학적 사유의 대상이자 매체이다. 특히 예술형식의 이념을 서술하는 비평가의 객관적이며 냉철한 언어는 그 자체가 윤리적이며 정치적인 행위가 된다. 또한 이념을 서술하는 비평가의 언어는 주체-객체 도식과 주체에 관한 통념이 중지되는 절대적이며 근원적인 영역이다. 벤야민이 궁구하는 철학적 진리는 중립적인 사실로서의 진리가 아니라 늘 구체적인 사회정치적 맥락에 개입하는 정치적 실천의 진리이다. 벤야민의 철학에서 기술은 그의 역사적-유물론적 예술철학과 역사적 지각이론의 핵심 범주이다. 문학적-예술적 기술에 대해 깊이 숙고하지 않는 예술철학은 반동적인 이데올로기가 될 위험이 크다. 이 글의 목표는 언어, 주체, 진리, 기술에 관한 벤야민의 철학적 사유가 본질적으로 정치적 실천과 연관되어 있음을 보여주는 것이다.

“My Heart Aches,” Therefore I Am: “Ode to a Nightingale” as Keats’s Romantic Experimentation with Language

( Kyoung-min Han ) 영미문학연구회 2017 영미문학연구 Vol.33 No.-

This essay examines John Keats’s interrogation of the possibilities as well as limitations of poetic language to liberate human consciousness from the confines of the ego and provide an enlarged understanding of the pain of human existence in “Ode to a Nightingale.” In exploring Keats’s experimental use of poetic language in the ode, the essay situates Keatsian language in the context of Romantic philosophy of language developed by contemporary German and British Romanticists. Greatly influenced by Kantian epistemology, Romantic philosophy of language recognizes the constitutive role of language in a language user’s cognition of the self as well as the self’s relation to the world. Drawing on Keats’s concept of negative capability, which emphasizes the importance of actively resisting our propensity for logical and systematized knowledge of the world built on a clear distinction between subject and object, this essay contends that Keats’s poetic experimentation in the ode complicates and challenges the Romantic theory of language. Specifically, by grounding his cogito in the reality of his heartache, which is of both endogenous and external origin, Keats undermines one of the main premises of the Romantic performative that understands the identity of the I fundamentally as a linguistic construct. In positing his heartache, which is neither provable nor disprovable by others, as the basis of the affirmation of his existence, Keats both acknowledges contemporary Romanticists’ insight into the performative role of language in the construction of subjectivity and rejects their belief in the impossibility of attaining knowledge of the I as substance. Though the speaker’s return to his self in the last stanza of the ode suggests that Keats’s battle with the autonomy of language to posit existence is far from won, the ode has successfully created the condition for exercising negative capability and obtaining a glimpse of “a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery.”

“My Heart Aches,” Therefore I Am: “Ode to a Nightingale” as Keats’s Romantic Experimentation with Language

한경민 영미문학연구회 2017 영미문학연구 Vol.33 No.-

This essay examines John Keats’s interrogation of the possibilities as well as limitations of poetic language to liberate human consciousness from the confines of the ego and provide an enlarged understanding of the pain of human existence in “Ode to a Nightingale.” In exploring Keats’s experimental use of poetic language in the ode, the essay situates Keatsian language in the context of Romantic philosophy of language developed by contemporary German and British Romanticists. Greatly influenced by Kantian epistemology, Romantic philosophy of language recognizes the constitutive role of language in a language user’s cognition of the self as well as the self’s relation to the world. Drawing on Keats’s concept of negative capability, which emphasizes the importance of actively resisting our propensity for logical and systematized knowledge of the world built on a clear distinction between subject and object, this essay contends that Keats’s poetic experimentation in the ode complicates and challenges the Romantic theory of language. Specifically, by grounding his cogito in the reality of his heartache, which is of both endogenous and external origin, Keats undermines one of the main premises of the Romantic performative that understands the identity of the I fundamentally as a linguistic construct. In positing his heartache, which is neither provable nor disprovable by others, as the basis of the affirmation of his existence, Keats both acknowledges contemporary Romanticists’ insight into the performative role of language in the construction of subjectivity and rejects their belief in the impossibility of attaining knowledge of the I as substance. Though the speaker’s return to his self in the last stanza of the ode suggests that Keats’s battle with the autonomy of language to posit existence is far from won, the ode has successfully created the condition for exercising negative capability and obtaining a glimpse of “a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery.”

국어교육의 철학과 정책

민현식 ( Hyunsik Min ) 국어교육학회 2016 國語敎育學硏究 Vol.51 No.2

국어교육철학은 국어교육의 여러 문제를 언어교육철학의 관점으로 연구하는 분야로 여러 쟁점을 다룬다. 국어의 기본 문제에서는 국어관, 국어 위상론, 남북언어 통일관, 국어 정체성관이 쟁점이다. 국어교육 문제로는 국어교과의 성격론, 국어과 교육과정의 영역론, 국어과 교육과정의 내용체계론, 국어과 교육내용의 위계 발달론이 쟁점이다. 국어철학 차원에서는 학습자의 세계관 형성을 위한 문제, 국가와 민족의 문제가 쟁점이다. 사회, 도덕과는 초등학교부터 통일교육을 하고 국제화 시대를 다루는데 국어과는 통일교육이나 국어 위상교육이 중학교부터 하여 늦으므로 초등학교부터 시작해야 한다. 국어교육정책도 국어교육학의 하위학문으로 여러 쟁점이 있다. 대체로 언어정책은 정치적 상황을 고려하며, 국어 교과서 정책, 입시정책 등에 영향을 끼치며 국어정책과도 밀접하다. 국어정책의 쟁점으로는 통합의 언어정책, 남북언어통일 대비정책, 세계표준국어문법 수립, 4대 표기법의 실용화, 한국어 정보화와 세종 2단계 말뭉치 구축과 국어사전 신정책 수립, 신문맹 퇴치의 국어능력 증진 정책이 필요하다. 한글전용과 별도로 체계적 초등학교 한자교육도 필요하다. 한국어는 인구 자본, 정치 자본, 경제 자본, 문화 자본이 풍부하여 언어 활력이 매우 높다. 국어교육철학의 이론적 기초가 튼튼하면 좋은 국어교육정책도 나오고 효과도 크므로 두 분야는 긴밀히 심화 연구되어야 한다. Philosophy of Korean language education (KLE) is a research area that investigates various issues of KLE from a perspective of language educational philosophy. The controversial issues of the Korean language (KL) are values, status, language unification, and identity of KL. Several teaching issues of KL are the features and domains of the subject and curriculum of KL and contents structures and teaching orders in the curriculum. KLE should attach great importance to learners` development of world view through KL texts. The Korean language education policy includes the issues of KLE and Korean language policy which has a direct influence on the policy of textbooks and entrance examination. We need to establish the communicative integration of KL, as well as to prepare for the language unification, to build grammar standardization, to revise orthographies, to compile a mega-corpus, and to improve the literacy of KL. Systematic Hanja education at elementary school is also necessary aside from the exclusive use of Hangeul. Korea has high linguistic vitality in terms of demographic capital, political capital, economic capital, and cultural capital. A strong theoretical foundation of philosophy of KLE produces good KLE policy that will make an effective influence on KLE.