یلمزلف در گرو تاریخ در مصاحبه با کریستین پوئش و سمیر بدیر

لویی یلمزلف چهره‌ای برجسته در تاریخ زبان‌شناسی است. یلمزلف در مقام یک زبان‌شناس با آثار و نظریه‌اش (که معمولاً با عنوان »گلوسم‌شناسی « از آن یاد می‌شود) به‌طور چشم‌گیری به ضرورت ایجاد یک »نظریۀ زبانی « پاسخ داده است. با این حال، پژوهش‌های او به فراسوی مرزهای زبان‌شناسی رایج گسترده شده است: وی با تکیه بر زبان، یک معرفت‌شناسی نشانه‌شناختی درون‌ماندگار را ابداع کرد که از طرفی، یک علم صوری کل‌گرا و عمومی را نوید می‌داد و از طرف دیگر، می‌توانست دانش‌شناسی‌ای را به منزلۀ نسخه‌ای بدیل در برابر دیگر دیدگاه‌های فلسفی در اختیار ما بگذارد. در زبان‌شناسی، دکترین او نتوانست ورای حلقۀ کپنهاگ به موفقیتی مناسب دست یابد و بیشتر زبان‌شناسان نظریۀ وی را به دلیل پیچیده‌ بودن و شکل و شمایل ریاضی‌وارش نپذیرفتند؛ اما در بیرون از زبان‌شناسی، ایده‌های او تا حدی در شاخۀ علمی جدیدی با عنوان »نشانه‌شناسی « (بالاخص در فرانسه) پیگیری شد. به‌طور کلی، یلمزلف جایگاه متناقض‌نمایی در تاریخ نظریه‌های زبانی دارد: او بنیان‌گذاری رهاشده است. چگونه می‌توانیم این وضعیت را توضیح دهیم؟ منشا و منابع رویکرد یلمزلف کجاست؟ چگونه می‌توان خصیصه‌های ویژۀ رویکرد او را در قیاس با سایر رویکردهای زبان‌شناختی توصیف کرد؟‌ میراث او چیست؟ امروز تا چه میزان می‌توان در دکترین او مشارکت داشته باشیم؟ جدیدترین کارها در زمینۀ یلمزلف‌پژوهی چیست؟ ما تلاش کردیم تا در گفت وگو با سمیر بدیر و کریستین پوئش به این پرسش‌ها پاسخ دهیم.

Hjelmslev in the History of Linguistic Ideas: An interview with Christian Puech and Sémir Badir

Louis Hjelmslev is a prominent figure in the history of Linguistics. As a linguist, his works and theory (usually referred to under the name of ldquo;Glossematics rdquo;) have largely contributed to the demand for a theory of language . However, his studies have in fact extremely surpassed the boundaries of ordinary linguistics: by embarking on language, he has proposed an innovated immanent semiotic epistemology that, on the one hand, could lead to a holistic and general formal science, and on the other hand, could provide a gnoseology capable to be introduced as an alternative for other philosophical versions. His doctrine in linguistics did not receive an appropriate acceptance beyond the Circle of Copenhagen and many linguists abandoned his theory, considering it too sophisticated and too mathematical. But beyond linguistics, his ideas have been partially followed in a new scientific discipline called ldquo;semiotics rdquo; (especially in France). On the whole, Hjelmslev occupies an ambivalent position in the history of linguistic theories: he is an abandoned founder. How can we explain this situation? What are the sources of Hjelmslev rsquo;s approach? How can we describe its basic characteristics in relation to other linguistic approaches? What are his legacies? To what extent can we contribute to his doctrine today? What are the recent works on Hjelmslev rsquo;s theory? These are some basic questions we seek to answer in our dialogue with Christian Puech, historian of linguistic theories and retired professor at the University of SorbonneNouvelle, and Semir Badir, specialist in the Hjelmslevian theory and professor of semantics, semiotics and epistemology of language at the University of Liege. In this dialogue, we realize that Hjelmslev rsquo;s approach to Saussure, unlike that of the Linguistic School of Prague, was not to dismiss master rsquo;s ideas but to deepen and radicalize them. Hjelmslev rsquo;s theoretical skeleton is relied on two conceptual pairs: form/substance and expression/content. Hjelmslev rsquo;s main question is not metaphysical, but epistemological: what are the conditions for constructing knowledge about language? In his theory, he seeks to build a calculus system, and in this respect he has an absolutely formalistic approach. Hjelmslev rsquo;s theory has three special features: its very unique power of abstraction, its reliance on immanent logic, and its simultaneous realism and irrealism. Contrary to popular belief, many structuralist theories, as well as French semiotics, are based on the views of Hjelmslev. In fact, his theory is both the theoretical basis of the semiotic project and the guarantee of its identity. Today, when semiotic theory needs to be revised, it is the rereading of Hjelmslev that feeds on the newly proposed concepts of semiotics. However, we have very scattered and limited knowledge about this theory. Much work still remains to be done. In recent years, some researchers have seriously examined Hjelmslev's theory of language that we should wait to see how this return will affect our knowledge of language.