Prieto, Luis Jorge

Luis Jorge Prieto (November 28, 1926, Buenos Aires, Argentina - March 31, 1996, Geneva, Switzerland) - Argentine linguist and semiotics .

Biography

Luis Prieto was born in 1926 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At the age of eight, Louis left his hometown with his parents and moved to Bahia Blanca , where his father served as a sergeant on the basis of the navy. A few years later, the Prieto family moved north to Cordoba , where the climate was much milder. The reason for this was probably the poor health of Louis. For the same reason, Louis could not attend school regularly and received home education. One of his mentors, Carlos Alberto Vazquez, had the greatest influence on the future scientist. “He taught me to think,” said Prieto himself.

Prieto enrolled at the University of Cordoba , where he studied classical languages ​​and linguistic comparative studies. He received his first degree in 1952, and in 1955 - his doctoral degree, having defended his thesis on Spanish phonology.

At that time, Prieto began to communicate with André Martinet , who taught at the University of Colombia. In 1954, in the journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, Prieto published an article that marked the beginning of his scientific career - “Traits oppositionnels et traits contrastifs” ^[1] (Fr., “Opposition signs and signs of contrast”).

In 1956, Prieto received a grant to study in France from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 1957 to 1960 He worked as a research assistant at the National Center for Scientific Research in France. At this time, Prieto began to actively work on his research and scientific articles, the publication of which was often postponed for various reasons. One of the reasons was the amazing novelty of his approach to the study of a particular discipline. It was then that the article “Principes de noologie” ^[2] (Fr., “Principles of Noology”, 1964) was written, which demonstrated his approach to noology . She was represented by André Martinet at the Graduate School of Social Sciences (Ecole des Hautes Etudes) in Paris, but was rejected by a commission led by Emile Benveniste .

In 1960, Prieto returned to Cordoba as a professor of general linguistics , and by next year the National Council of Argentina for Research appointed Prieto to the post of research officer. As a result of the military coup in 1966, he lost his position, after which he spent a year as a private teacher in Buenos Aires, where he made useful contacts with psychoanalysts.

In 1967, Prieto received an invitation from the University of Algeria, where he remained for two years, teaching general linguistics. In 1969, the University of Vincennes in a suburb of Paris offered him the post of associate professor of semiotics. However, at about the same time, at the suggestion of André Martinet, the University of Geneva appointed Prieto to the position of professor of general linguistics, who was freed after the retirement of Henri Frey . Ferdinand de Saussure held the same post at the time. For two years, Prieto traveled constantly from Paris to Switzerland, until in 1972 he quit his job in Paris and moved to Geneva.

In 1973, during a short period of democracy in Argentina, Prieto was offered the post of head of the department of semiology in Buenos Aires. There he spent two months, but the political situation deteriorated again, and he left the country.

Since then, Prieto resided in Geneva. He took an active part in the development of the magazine Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, where he worked as an editor. Enjoyed communicating with many representatives of the Italian scientific community. His latest book was called “Saggi di semiotica” ^[3] (IT, “Essay on semiotics”). ^[four]

Semiotics by Louis H. Prieto

Prieto considers language as a semiotic structure, and linguistic facts occupy the central place of his scientific reflections. His first works are related to linguistics and are a reflection of his approach to semiotics. Prieto belongs to the followers of the tradition of Saussure, among whom was Andre Martinet.

In the Saussure tradition, a sign (linguistic sign) is a two-sided object, consisting in the union of the signifier and signified, connected arbitrarily (for example, by agreement). Saussure himself never determined the size of the sign: it could be a sentence, a phrase, a word, or a minimal sign object, although in his illustrations it was most often a word. In turn, Prieto most often meant this sentence. Its two faces are signifying (expression) and signified (content) in each language (langue) are divided into minimal units, each with its own signified and signifying.

Particular attention to the differences Saussure led to the concept of "relevance" (pertinence, Fr.), proposed by Karl Bühler and presented to Martin as the basis for the functional analysis of the language. Linguistic relevance is revealed during a commutative test . Thus, linguistic units that may arise in the same context are in opposition to each other. The concept of "contrast", in turn, belongs to the relationship between units that exist in one statement. It is with the difference between the opposition and the contrast that Prieto begins its work. ^[four]

Opposition and Contrast

In the article “Traits oppositions et traits contrastifs” ^[1] , published in 1954, Prieto distances himself from his predecessors, arguing that “ phonology dealt with paradigmatic units, in turn leaving aside determination and study of syntagmatic units instead of close relationships, that exist between them. " The study of these relationships will remain the focus of Prieto throughout his career. ^[four]

Connections and components

Another important goal of Prieto's work is the identification and characterization of units, which are different objects, separated in space and time. The distinction between compounds and components arises in many of his works (“Caractiristique et dimension: Essai de difinition de la syntaxe” ^[5] , “Etudes de linguistique et de semiologie générales” ^[6] ). Thus, distinctive features cannot be defined as objects, and the phoneme is not a compound, but a component of these compounds, like syllables. A syllable in turn is a component of a word and, therefore, a sentence. The basis for the distinction of syntagmatic units is found in prosody. A phoneme is presented not as a distinctive attribute, but as an object of identification. ^{[2] [4]}

Noology

When Prieto addresses the concept of context in his Principes de noologie ^[2] (published in 1964, but conceived as early as the late 1950s), he emphasizes the need to work with the context regardless of expression, just like phonology works with expressions regardless of context. This means that it begins with a sentence, the only independent object of discourse (Spanish oración means both “sentence” and “discourse”). Generally speaking, his approach is a commutative operation, through which a sentence is divided into characteristics of value. But characteristics that cannot be defined as space-time objects cannot be an integral unit (unit). The minimum element of content, noeme, is in turn a set of characteristics of value, the presence of one of which determines the presence of others. Noah’s analysis, according to Prieto, is not related to the morphemes of the followers of Bloomfeld or the monements of functionalists.

An important digression from Prieto from both traditional and modern analysis is the inclusion of grammatical functions as characteristics of Noem. For example, in a certain context, a “book” as a subject will not be the same noema as a “book” as an object. It should be noted that characteristics such as "subject" and "object" appear in brackets, and thus are considered "contrastive." This means that they do not change each other, but coexist together in a sentence. ^[four]

Characteristics and measurements

In the epilogue to the article “Etudes de linguistique et de sémiologie générales” ^[6] (Fr., “Studies in linguistics and general semiology”) Prieto notes that each characteristic has a contrastive and oppositional component: when we describe a window, one of its characteristics will not be “3 feet”, but “(width) 3 feet.” This is due to the replacement of the "contrasting element" by the concept of "dimension" not only in cases where spatialness is pronounced, but even in those where it is not implied, as, for example, in this case - "(color) red"

Since the integral elements, according to Prieto's theory, are in related positions in the sentence, syntax deals with the study of their contrasting qualities. It is worth noting that syntactic relations are not limited to the context and each element is characterized by a “dimension” indicated in brackets, and is certainly accompanied by an opposition component. In the conceptual plane, the contrastive model for each element consists of several contrastive components, or dimensions, which characterize all elements that have similar semantic behavior. Returning to the example with a window: its contrastive model will include not only width, but also length, frame material, etc. Thus, each descriptive element represents a contrastive model, which determines its role in the synology of phonology.

The result of Prieto’s research of measurements (contrasting qualities) was the assertion of prosody, which until then had been only an addition to the study of segmental phonemes, as the basic structure that organizes these phonemes. ^[four]

Two levels of meaning

Value for Prieto is a kind of knowledge that the sender wants to convey to the recipient so that it becomes knowledge for the latter. Thus, the value is perceived by the sender and the recipient at two levels: 1) at the level of “mutual perception” and 2) at the linguistic level. The first level includes the second (i.e., any knowledge that contains a linguistic signal), but complements it with information that follows from the context and is known to both participants. If it is necessary to choose between red wine and white wine, the sender can say “red wine”. But if it is known that we are talking about wine, then it will be enough to say “red”. Obviously, the value at the linguistic level depends on the information embedded at the level of mutual perception. Prieto calls “connotative” this predetermination of linguistic meaning situational, knowing full well that this is not what is commonly called connotation. He also, however, recalls that each language has its own model for conveying meaning, which means it influences the level of mutual perception.

Prieto prefers to work with objects. Value as a kind of knowledge (the object of thought), in his opinion, cannot be a composite object. Consequently, its components cannot be independent objects. These are defined objects, understood as oppositional elements of value characteristics. In the sentence “Man has lost a book” the word “book” represents the syntactic dimension “direct object” and the oppositional element “book”, which refers to an object with a specific meaning. ^[four]

Syntax and semantics

It is important to remember that contrastive models include not only the semantic component, but also the syntactic one, so these two concepts should be studied together. Prieto argued that syntax is not just the study of the relationship between elements of a statement. The division in the plane of syntax should take place not between the “form” and the “substance”, but within the substance - between the universal component of the cognitive construction and the non-universal, its distinctive feature. The universal part of the cognitive construction of meaning belongs to the syntax, and the semantics includes distinctive features. But, nevertheless, they should be studied together, since syntax and semantics exist inseparably from each other.

Scheme of the language (communication) act ^[4]

Sign Act

Prieto is known primarily for his contribution to the study of a sign, or communication act (acte semique), in particular the speech act. This concept is based on the works of linguist E. Bussans and uses the concept of " seme ". Sema is an elementary unit of the communication process, consisting of inseparably connected signifier and signified (the term was introduced by E. Bussans in 1943). In language, an elementary unit is a sentence. The sign act of Prieto describes as follows.

The sender wants to transfer some knowledge to the recipient so that it also becomes the knowledge of the recipient. This knowledge is a value or a message. This knowledge, which is a concrete concept, is a type of class of meanings offered by a particular language. A class of values ​​represents an abstract concept — it is signified (signifié). Significant, another abstract concept representing a class of signals, is associated with each signified. A signal is a specific means used by the sender to transmit a message. In the case of a speech act, it is sound. When the transmitted signal reaches the receiver, the receiver determines that it belongs to an abstract class of characters, which, in turn, is associated with an abstract class of values. Thus, the recipient can decipher the specific value transmitted to him during the conversational act with the help of all the information available in this situation.

Any sign act involves two processes: the sender puts the meaning into the sound with the help of the signified and the signifier, and the recipient translates the sound into the meaning with the help of the signifier and then the signified. Each process has two levels: from concrete to abstract and from abstract to concrete. " ^[4]

Sema

The sema used in the language act has a dual structure, and therefore carries two levels of information. The first level, that is, the intention of the sender to transmit a message to the recipient, can be described as the notification (the notificative indication). Prieto is more interesting the second level - the message itself, - which has the defining character (the significative indication). ^{[4] [7]}

Value Form

The acts described above are cognitive. In all cases, some knowledge is transmitted. Knowledge passes through a series of classes in which the real substances representing objects are distributed. These classes are defined by characteristics and represent concepts, and knowledge is represented as a “conceptual perception” of reality. Prieto notes that the characteristics of an object can only be found in the aesthetics of that part of reality that this object represents, in other words, in the sphere of the physiological influence of the object on the senses of the subject. ^{[4] [6]}

Scheme of the instrumental act ^[4]

Instrumental Act

Do not forget that the development of knowledge, and the expression of certain concepts is possible not only by methods of semiotics and linguistics, but also with the help of the so-called “instrumental acts” (acte instrumental). In the process of an instrumental act, the subject (or operator) performs a set of operations, using appropriate tools to achieve a certain result or to do a certain thing. The “operated” (functionality) of the instrument determines the class of operations that can be performed with its help. Prieto calls the class of instruments with which one can perform a certain operation “operating” (opérant, by analogy with the signifiant). Operable and operating - two sides of instrumentation (instrument), as signified and meaning - semes.

An instrumental act, unlike a linguistic act, does not imply the presence of feedback, since during an instrumental act knowledge is acquired but not transmitted, no information is exchanged, that is, communication, as in a linguistic act.

It can also be said that the signal is nothing but a tool designed to transmit information. A speaker is an operator whose purpose is the transfer of knowledge. The toolkit will be a sem, the operation will appear as a message or a value. From the point of view of the sender, the sign act is only a kind of instrumental. An important feature of the instrumental action is the repeatability of the same operations performed with the help of the same instruments, the same gestures, as is the case with vocal gestures of speech. Moreover, all this is accomplished with a single goal - the emergence and separation of concepts and, in general, the “conceptual perception of reality” and the accumulation of knowledge, regardless of a particular language. The aforesaid levels out Roland Bart's statement that the sign field belongs exclusively to the plane of the language. ^[four]

Linguistic economy and articulation

In “Messages et signaux” ^[7] (Fr., “Messages and Signals”), Prieto addresses the issue of language economy, where a seme is perceived not in conjunction with a landmark act as such, but from the point of view of the code to which it belongs, and in Compared with other semes with similar code.

In his work, Prieto relies heavily on Martin’s double articulation model ( double division ). At the first level, seme segmentation is divided into autonomously significant particles due to its dual structure, that is, into signified and signifying. At the second level of segmentation, the signifier is divided into elementary units. It is worth noting that the second level of division is possible without the first.

Double articulation allows you to select four types of encoding:

1. Code without articulation. Take for example a traffic light: the seme (red) “stand” cannot be broken down into either significant particles or elementary units.

2. Code only with the first articulation. For example, the mathematical expression “2 + 4” can be broken down into significant elements: 2, 4, + - however, they can no longer be broken down into elementary symbols.

3. Code only with the second articulation. For example, bus route numbers: the signifier can be broken down into elementary units, while the seme itself cannot be broken down into individual significant elements.

4. Code with double articulation. An example of such a code are natural languages, namely double articulation distinguishes them from other encodings. For Prieto, natural languages ​​are the only encoding where the signified takes into account the relationship of occurrence and intersection. ^[four]

Main publications of Luis Jorge Prieto

Not a single Prieto publication has been translated into Russian. Prieto mostly wrote in French, Italian and Spanish.

• (1964) Principes de noologie . The Hague: Mouton.
• (1965) Fonction et economic. La linguistique 1, 1-15; 2, 41-46.
• (1965) Que es la lingüística funcional? Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo
• (1966) Messages et signaux. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
• (1968) La semiologie. In Le langage , Andre Martinet (ed.), 93-114. Paris: Encyclopedic de la Pleiade.
• (1971) Notes pour une semiologie de la communication artistique. Werk 4, 248-251.
• (1973) Signe et instrument. In Recueil d'etudes offen a Bernard Gagnebin , 179-196. Lausanne: Edition Age d'Homme.
• (1974) Borghese e proletario. Rinascita 21, 32.
• (1975) Etudes de linguistique et de semiologie generates . Geneva: Librairie Droz.
• (1975) Pertinence et pratique. Essai de semiologie . Paris: Minuit.
• (1976) Pertinenza e pratica (Saggi di semiotica). Milan: Feltrinelli.
• (1976) Structure oppositionelle et structure semiotique. Revue Europeenne des sciences sociales et Cahiers Vilfredo. Pareto 14 (38-39), 379-391.
• (1977) Discorso e realtä. Unitä (4 ottobre) , 3.
• (1978) La politica nascosta. Unitä (21 gennaio) , 3.
• (1978) Le plaisir dans les processus de la pertinence et de l'actualite. In Psicoanalisi e classi sociali: Enzo Marpurgo (ed.), 1-13. Milano: Editori Riuniti.
• (1979) Entwurf einer allgemeinen Semiologie. Zeitschrift für Semiotik l, 259-266.
• (1986) Subjekt und Entscheidung. Zur Rolle von Norm und Geschmack beim symbolischen Überleben . Zeitschrift für Semiotik 8, 9-24.
• (1989) Saggi di semiotica. Vol. l, Sulla conoscenza . Parma: Pratiche Editrice.
• (1991) Saggi di semiotica. Vol. 2, Süll'arte e sul soggetto . Parma: Pratiche Editrice.
• (1995) Saggi di semiotica. Vol. 3, sul significato . Parma: Pratiche Editrice.