The Epilogue that Started It All; or,
Integrating LIS (Harris and Hjørland )
A bibliographical essay and annotated bibliography
Mark R. Lindner
LIS511 Fall 2007
Dedicated to the Improbable Don Quixote
Thank you, David
This bibliographical essay and supporting annotated bibliography is, in effect, a warm-up for my Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) paper. That project will attempt to (1) outline a theory of communication and linguistics called Integrationism and its critique of orthodox views of linguistics; (2) provide a brief overview of the major paradigms of information science, with a short critique of the physical and cognitive viewpoints, and (3) situate Integrationism within Hjørlands socio-cognitive domain analysis.
This essay and bibliography will focus on the connections and possible overlap between, primarily, two prolific scholars, Roy Harris, emeritus professor of General Linguistics in the University of Oxford, founder of Integrationism, and Birger Hjørland, proponent of the socio-cognitive paradigm and domain analysis in Information Science (IS).
For Hjørland, epistemology is central to work in IS (1998f), defending particular theories and epistemologies is important (2007a), if our theories and epistemologies have no practical implications then they are of no consequence (2007a), and one must argue against a disciplines theoretical and methodological principles if one finds fault with those principles (Hjørland 1997a).
Roy Harris has been doing just that—arguing against the theoretical and methodological principles of orthodox linguistics for over 30 years. Harris is the founder of Integrationism, a radical view of communication and language. Harris main critique centers on what he calls the Language Myth (1981), but Integrationism offers a broad critique of the history of Western thought on language for over two millennia.
My intention for my CAS paper is to take a quick look at the meta-theoretical paradigms or views in LIS, with a specific focus on Hjørlands socio-cognitive view and domain analysis. Once I have situated my commitments to an overarching view within LIS, I will then focus on what it might mean if LIS were to take seriously the Integrationist views of language and communication.
There is a lot of overlap, if only one direct connection, between Hjørland and Harris. Hjørland (2007a) cites Harris (2005a) in a footnote on the topic of pragmatist semantics and philosophy of science, and says, Harris (2005) provides an important critique of the semantic assumptions generally made in science (396). As far as I have been able to discern this is the only direct citation either way.
Both authors are committed to the view that theories, epistemologies, and unexamined assumptions are important; that one should defend those they believe; and that they do, in fact, matter. Our theories, viewpoints, epistemologies, assumptions and myths should, and generally do, have practical or pragmatic effects in the world. Both would question what those effects are and whether they are effects we are or should be willing to accept.
Domain analysis is predicated on a division of labor in society (1997a, 2002f, 2004f). Harris and Hjørland both critique that division of labor within their own and surrounding disciplines (Harris, any, in particular 1996; Hjørland and Albrechtsen 1995a, Hjørland 2004f).
For the Integrationist there are three communicational parameters applicable to the identification of signs within the temporal continuum. The biomechanical relates to the physical and mental capacities of the individual participants; the macrosocial relates to practices established in the community or some group within the community; and the circumstantial relates to the specific conditions obtaining in a particular communication situation (Harris, 2005b).
Hjørlands work across time (1995a, 2002d, 2004f) has reflected much that parallels the three parameters of Integrationism but has grown even more so recently (2007a, 2007f). Several quick examples should suffice to demonstrate this.
Information seeking in a biological sense is reflective of the biomechanical (1995a, 406). Document and genre studies role in domain analysis reflects the macrosocial (2002d, 436-438), as does his view of languages for special purposes serving different communicative needs (2002d, 444). According to the domain-analytic framework, the meaning of a term can only be understood from the context in which it appears (2002d, 413) is highly similar to all signs are products of the communication situation (International Association) and they both reflect the circumstantial.
Synonymy and when is a semantic relation are discussed by Hjørland in (2007a, 379-380) and (2001c), while synonymy is the subject of Harris dissertation and first book (1973).
In (2007f), Hjørland critiques the modern, Western discourses of LIS (2), which he labels as positivist, ahistorical and decontextualized (3). This is a decades long critique by Harris on linguistics and Western discourse about language. In the same paper Hjørland describes controlled vocabularies as representing a prescriptive or normative KOS that have been passed off as neutral and objective (7). Integrationism considers language to be normative (Taylor). Thus, controlled vocabularies will also be normative. The issue is to provide multiple vocabularies to expose and make usable different norms, and to dispel the notion of neutrality and objectivity.
There are superficial and there are deep connections between Harris (and Integrationism) and Hjørland. I hope to uncover even more as I work toward determining which are which. Some of these include bibliometrics as macrosocial and circumstantial (2002d, 2007a); the theory of information processing mechanisms as broadly integrative (2002f, 2004f); and the use of metalinguistic/semantic tools (2007a, 2007f).
Hjørland (2007a) writes:
The different theories and epistemologies that are in competition with one another may be more or less fruitful (or harmful) for information science. It is important to realize this and to take the risk of defending a particular theory. If this is not done, other views will never be sufficiently falsified, confirmed, or clarified. In the process of defending a particular view, one learns what other views it is necessary to reject. As pragmatist philosophers have long suggested, in order to make our thoughts clear, we have to ask what practical consequences follow from taking one or another view (or meaning) as true. If our theory (or meaning) does not have any practical implications, then it is of no consequence (372, emphasis mine).
This is exactly what I intend to do with my CAS paper. I am taking a stand on a few particular theories both within and without LIS to determine their value to progress in our field. To do so will require cogent critiques of those I am also rejecting. In the process I will learn much of value regarding which other commitments must stand or fall due to those I have chosen to defend. My final aim is to start a conversation in our field regarding what our linguistic commitments—often completely unexamined—are and what the impact of those commitments are on both theory and practice in LIS. My secondary goal is to provide Integrationism as a serious alternative to our current communication and linguistic theories in the field.
Harris, Roy. 1973. Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Based on Harris Ph.D. Treats synonymy as applicable to sentences, and perhaps broader, instead of just to words. Even before I realized it was taking a broader view of synonymy, it seemed to me that it might be highly applicable to LIS.
Are we in LIS not, in some sense, saying that two items are synonymous when we apply the same controlled vocabulary terms or classification to them? When I apply the same tag to multiple items is there not some way in which I am declaring them to be synonymous?
———. 1980. The Language-Makers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
First of several excellent book-length philosophical, sociological, and historical critiques on the current received view in linguistics and how we got here. Harris makes the case that understanding of what a language is depends on prevailing cultural patterns and social values, which, in turn, are reflected in linguistic theory. Harris main targets in this book are the views:
he labels surrogationalism (the view that words can serve as proxy for things), instrumentalism (the view that words are tools for achieving practical purposes), and contractualism (which sees language as the embodiment of conventions) (jacket blurb).
———. 1981. The Language Myth. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Lays out the case for the language myth in Western culture and linguistics. The language myth has been with us in some form now since the start of recorded Western culture. In its most basic form it is founded on two theses.
One is the thesis that speech is a form of telementation, a means of conveying thoughts from one mind to another. The other thesis is that of linguistic determinancy: it holds that every effective form of communication requires a fixed code (Harris 1998).
Harris brilliantly shows how the language myth pervades Western culture from the level of society and institutions—particularly education—down to the individual lay understanding of language.
This argument deserves its book length treatment as it figures prominently in Integrationism, the language myth often being invoked with minimal explanation.
———. 1987. The Language Machine. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
The Epilogue that started it all. In response to a comment of mine on my blog post, David Bades paper, redux, David suggested that I read the epilogue to Roy Harris The Language Machine entitled Saying Nothing.
I did that and it blew my mind; immediately I began the book from the beginning and then devoured several more Harris books in quick succession. I was hooked.
I highly recommend starting with the epilogue to this book to anyone interested in Harris ideas and Integrationism. From there one can branch out depending on your specific interest, but start with Saying Nothing.
See entry for Lindner (2007a) David Bades paper, redux below.
———. 1988. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to Play Games with Words. London: Routledge.
Despite the differences between Saussures and Wittgensteins later thoughts on language they are remarkably similar. In this book, Harris explicates the games analogy that both used.
Hjørland cites Wittgenstein, both the earlier and later, several times over the last decade. This work of Harris will serve well to find any points of contact, agreement and/or disagreement between both theorists use of Wittgenstein.
———. 1996. The Language Connection: Philosophy and Linguistics. Bristol, U.K: Thoemmes Press.
Explores the connection between philosophy and linguistics; that is, their parallel and intertwined development, shared common technical vocabulary, and necessary agreement that language is reflexive. In effect, this book is a sociological, historical and philosophical exegesis and radical critique of the ultimate and foundational metalinguistic questions.
Provides a scathing critique of these two disciplines, with focus on what Harris calls the segregational view of language composed of the seven interlocking doctrines of use and mention, types and tokens, parts of speech, sentences and propositions, telementation, fixed codes, and plain representation (149).
Being able to maintain and defend adequate academic territories is what has driven the simplistic view of language in both disciplines; this agenda has been well served by the two thousand-year-old division of linguistic inquiry [which] is itself largely responsible for the failure so far in Western culture to deliver anything like a convincing account of linguistic investigation (179).
Is LIS guilty of the safeguarding of their own (and probably the very same) metalinguistic framework? I think the answer can only be Yes. How does our metalinguistic framework generate our successes but, more importantly, how does it generate our failures? What non-questions does it generate and focus research on, and what questions does it prevent us from asking?
———. 1998. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Small but important work based on revised version[s] of lectures to students given by the author as Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Adelaide in spring 1977 (ix).
Lays out the case for Integrationism and Integrational linguistics in six succinct chapters. Topics include language and communication, the language myth, meaning, discourse, writing, and society. Each chapter includes suggestions for further reading, some of which are in the companion volume, Integrational Linguistics: A First Reader, edited by Harris and Wolf (1998), and a set of discussion questions.
Volume 17 in the Language & Communication Library series, edited by Roy Harris. Volume 18 in the same series is a companion reader.
———. 2005a. The Semantics of Science. London: Continuum.
The one direct connection between Harris and Hjørland. Hjørland in Semantics and Knowledge Organization (2007a) in a section entitled, Semantics and the Philosophy of Science, cites this work by Harris saying that, Harris (2005) provides an important critique of the semantic assumptions generally made in science (396).
Inquires into the assumptions about language that scientists make in their work (viii). The two most basic questions Harris asks are: What does science require of language? and What does language require of science? (viii). Discusses the supercategory of science and the rhetoric that arises from such.
———. 2005b. Integrationism - An integrational approach to linguistics & communication. Roy Harris Online. (Accessed January 28, 2008).
Short web page at Roy Harris Online that lays out Integrationism in a paragraph each under eights heads: An Integrational approach to communication; Communication as a creative activity; Integration and time; Integrationism versus segregationism; Three Integrational parameters; Signs and rules; An alternative to static models of communication, and; The language myth and demythologization.
Useful to refer to on occasion to remind myself of one way of stating the Integrational view, but I think it is far too perfunctory to be of much value to those just coming to Integrationism. A differently structured document attempting to answer the same question is (International Association). Perhaps together they can give some answers; although perhaps less than the number of questions they generate.
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton. 2007. Definition in Theory and Practice: Language, Lexicography and the Law. London: Continuum.
Integrationism has important theoretical implications for definition. Harris addresses definition in many other works, particularly 2005a. Hjørland has also addressed definition in several places (2001c, 2007a) and has also commented on my blog regarding my questioning of his lack of definitions in his 2007a ARIST chapter [See the entry for Lindner (2007b) Hjørlands Semantics and Knowledge Organization, pt. 1. below].
Definition is an important theoretical issue in all forms of information organization, access and retrieval.
Harris, Roy, and George Wolf, eds. 1998. Integrational Linguistics: A First Reader. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Companion reader to Harris Introduction to Integrational Linguistics (1998). Chapter headings and topics mirror those of its companion volume. Each of the sections is preceded by a short thematic linking of the papers by the editors. Eight of the twenty-four chapters are by Harris and all of the papers have been previously published elsewhere, although two are adaptations.
This is an excellent collection with almost all of the papers of high quality and all of them capable of bringing home some point regarding Integrationism and/or the critique of orthodox linguistics.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in Integrationism.
Volume 18 in the Language & Communication Library series, edited by Roy Harris. Volume 17 in the same series is a companion.
Hjørland, Birger. 1997a. Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Information Science. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
Oh, my, my. So many points of contact between Hjørland and Integrationism. Those were my comments when I first started reading this book. Lays out a fairly comprehensive theory of information seeking, subject representation, and related topics.
Early uses are the importance of epistemology to LIS, domain analysis, division of labor, and the idea that one must argue with the theoretical and methodological commitments of ones discipline if they disagree.
———. 1998b. Information Retrieval, Text Composition, and Semantics. Knowledge Organization 25, no. 1/2: 16-31.
Argues for a broader—and different—view of semantics within LIS. Primarily contrasts Wittgensteins early picture theory with his later theory of language games, but has several useful touch points for shifting to a more Integrationist theory.
Includes a useful discussion of the concept of concepts in several epistemologies and theories of languages, and serves as an argument for the centrality of epistemology for IS. Demonstrates how document composition is interwoven with subject access points in varying effectiveness and importance.
———. 1998f. Theory and Metatheory of Information Science: A New Interpretation. Journal of Documentation 54, no. 5 (December): 606-621.
This is an excellent article that discusses the role of epistemological theories in IS. I know that many folks avoid philosophical discussions like the plague, but this article is quite understandable by all. Another reason many folks avoid these sorts of discussions is that they want answers. But as Hjørland writes:
Epistemology has no final answer, there is no consensus about the scientific method. Insight in epistemology can, however, provide you with knowledge about the merits and weaknesses of the different solutions, and progress in the scientific method as well as classification must be based on the historical evidence gained in epistemology and science studies (613).
Recommended highly as a good, balanced and easily understood overview of how and why epistemology is central to our discipline.
———. 2001c. Towards a Theory of Aboutness, Subject, Topicality, Theme, Domain, Field, Content ... and Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52, no. 9:774-778.
Cited above in the entry for Harris and Hutton on definition. In what is a rare short article for Hjørland, he addresses definition and scientific concepts, provides a quite cogent explication of serious issues in synonymity, and looks at the highly varied language used to discuss one of the most central concepts in IS.
———. 2002c. Epistemology and the Socio-Cognitive Perspective in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 4: 257-270. (accessed September 14, 2007).
Demonstrates the differences between the cognitive and socio-cognitive views through the lens of the psychology literature, discusses domain analysis, shows that knowledge of subject literature(s) is required for effective information retrieval, demonstrates that different paradigms and epistemologies imply different information needs and relevance criteria.
Some of these points ought to be blatantly self-evident but they are generally ignored in our literature. These points seem like they can be cashed out in Integrationist terms.
———. 2002d. Domain Analysis in Information Science. Journal of Documentation 58, no. 4: 422-462. (accessed September 14, 2007).
Long but useful article about the uses of domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches to domain analysis are presented; many of these seem highly Integrational.
Important ideas for my purposes include some ideas on how to do domain analysis, and its many examples that can be paired up with the three parameters of Integrationism (Harris, 2005b). Ideas regarding document and genre studies reflect the integrative function of documents in our lives, along with reflecting much of the macrosocial parameter of knowledge production. Bibliometrics as presented reflects the macrosocial and circumstantial.
Terminological studies, language for special purpose (LSP), database semantics and discourse studies was the most productive citationally for me. LSPs and sublanguages will be critical to my critique of language in LIS. Can we legitimately speak of sublanguages within Integrationism, or must they be given a different spin? LSPs seem to reflect the macrosocial at first blush.
———. 2002f. Principia Informatica: Foundational Theory of Information and Principles of Information Services. Ed. Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, and Pertti Vakkari. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS), July.
Conference paper that serves as a good overview of much of Hjørlands theorizing up till then. Discusses the biological and cultural development of information processing mechanisms, which is highly integrative; information processing, the social division of labor, and domain analysis. The article concludes with some comments on polysemy for IR due to word use being flexible and generative (118), context, the non-neutrality of algorithms and the need for choice of algorithms by the user, and some implications for IS.
Fundamental is to give up the quest for one universal, ideal language, algorithm, and model of information seeking (119). Hjørland also rejects universal classfication efforts in 2007f.
———. 2004f. Domain Analysis: A Socio-Cognitive Orientation for Information Science Research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 30, no. 3 (March): 17-21. (accessed September 19, 2007).
Good, short overview of domain analysis based on the authors plenary talk at the ASIS&T 2003 Annual Meeting on Humanizing Information Technology: New Theoretical Approaches in Play. This is one of my favorite Hjørland pieces. Provides a clear overview of domain analysis and several of the authors other views in a concise, readable style. While the author makes several bold, and important, claims he also drops tasty little tidbits and provides routes to follow to learn much more about most of his main ideas. I might supplement the For Further Reading some but it contains several core Hjørland cites and others.
Claims that domain analysis offers a comprehensive theory of IS with a coherent view of all major concepts in IS and that it provides an identity for IS consistent with the history of the field (17). Several touchpoints for a possible Integrational spin exist: Calls for broader integration with other fields; says no to the monolithic user, either as a individual cognitive agent (subjective) or as an objective ideal user and, broadens domain analysis beyond science and academe.
This article is highly recommended, and for multiple reasons.
———. 2005j. The Socio-Cognitive Theory of Users Situated in Specific Contexts and Domains. In Theories of Information Behavior, ed. Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, and Lynne McKechnie, 339-343. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Short, 4-page article that attempts to explicate the socio-cognitive view of the individuals cognitive processes within the social framework of domain analysis. Primary topics touched upon are the socio-cognitive view, domain analysis, and pragmatic realism.
As an introduction to these topics, and a few more, I much prefer 2004f. It is far clearer and more integrated than this chapter.
The primary benefit of this overall, edited volume will become apparent for the CAS paper as a whole, and particularly for the section on applicability of Integrationism, domain analysis and the socio-cognitive view for IS, by providing a short introduction to over 70 theories of information behavior. This will allow for rapid identification of specific theories, views, and research agendas that do, might, or do not fit within the theoretical views being discussed in my paper.
———. 2007a. Semantics and Knowledge Organization. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 367-405. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
One of a small number of key Hjørland documents. Cites Harris (2005a) in a footnote regarding semantics of science. In preparation for Hjørlands visit to GSLIS in Oct. 2007 I re-read this article closely and wrote a 2-part blog post that came out to 12 printed pages. Hjørland commented on the post regarding issues of definition [See Lindner 2007b/c].
Outlines issues in semantics and the implications of these for knowledge organization. Argues for knowledge organizing systems as semantic tools since these tools consist of concepts, their definitions, and relationships between them. Thus, semantic theory is essential to this work.
Immediately useful ideas include his views on philosophy of science; that is, the importance of our epistemological commitments and the need to risk defending particular theories. The discussions of synonymy and of semantic tools provide lots of fodder for my ideas on the metalinguistic/linguistic difference and what that might amount to.
Highly recommended article.
———. 2007f. Arguments for 'the Bibliographical Paradigm'. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science--"Featuring the Future", October. (accessed November 25, 2007).
His most recent article and the foundation and structure of his Visiting Scholar Lecture at GSLIS, UIUC, October 2007.
Argues for the establishment of a metatheoretical bibliographic paradigm rooted in documentation practice. Cites several other authors attempting to reintroduce the document concept as the core concept in LIS (en9), including Buckland, Frohmann, Furner, himself, Lund, and Ørom.
Useful for its critique of modern, Western discourse in LIS; controlled vocabularies as normative and for providing an interpretive semantic level; its alignment with the three parameters of Integrationism, and more broadly; and for its attempt to establish a metatheoretical bibliographic paradigm rooted in documentation practice.
Hjørland, Birger, and Hanne Albrechtsen. 1995a. Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46, no. 6: 400-425. (accessed September 14, 2007).
Excellent article that compares and contrasts domain analysis (DA) to other epistemologies, paradigms and views within information science (IS) providing a critique of the discipline ala Harris. Describes DA as a new view in IS, considers precursors and contributors to DA, investigates relationships to similar views in other domains, and provides examples of research issues in DA. One of these is the use of language in different domains (419).
Considers knowledge from a transdisciplinary perspective which stresses the social, ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge (400). Sees IS as a social science.
If you are at all interested in domain-analysis I highly suggest reading this paper.
Davis, Hayley G. 2001. Words: An Integrational Approach. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.
Quite entertaining book using fieldwork and interview techniques (ix-x) to focus on the uses to which English speakers on the one hand, and linguistic theorists on the other, put the word word (ix). Also a fast read.
The take home message is the variability of users experience with and use of metalinguistic thinking and talk contra the linguistic theorists who think we all have the same ideas innately.
Volume 1 in the Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic Theory series, edited by Roy Harris.
Davis, Hayley G., and Talbot J. Taylor, eds. 1990. Redefining Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Consists of an introductory chapter and 4 papers, versions of which were presented at the Linguistics Redefined conference, Northeast Missouri State University, March 1989.
Hayley Davis contributes the Introduction, while Roy Harris, Nigel Love, Talbot J. Taylor, and Paul Hopper focus on four different areas to show that linguistics must be redefined, and how progress might be made towards that goal.
The Taylor chapter on the normativity of language due to its moral, political, and cultural aspects was particularly excellent [see entry].
Goody, Jack. 1987. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Highly recommended by Hjørland in several places. I concur and must say that the last few chapters resonated greatly with me. Hjørland in Principia Informatica (2002f) writes:
Jack Goody is probably the most important researcher on the cognitive implications of writing, literacy, and the alphabet. His research is of immense relevance for cognitive science and LID (112).
Harris and the Integrationists do comment on Goody, both positively and negatively. May well need to trace these connections out for my CAS paper, along with Harris extensive writings on literacy and writing.
International Association for the Integrational Study of Language and Communication. What is Integrationism? International Integrationists Assoc. (Accessed January 28, 2008).
Short statement describing some of the commitments (positive and negative) of Integrationism at the International Association for the Integrational Study of Language and Communication (IAISLC) web site.
Together with Harris (2005b) provides two related, but different snapshots of a few things Integrationism is and is not committed to. May generate more questions than ones answered, though. Useful as a reminder to one who is a bit more familiar with Integrationist thinking already.
Lindner, Mark. 2007a. David Bades paper, redux. Off the Mark, May 16. (accessed January 5, 2008).
The Epilogue that started it all. In response to a comment of mine on this blog post David suggested that I read the epilogue to Roy Harris The Language Machine (1987) entitled Saying Nothing. The epilogue blew my mind. Now several months later I find myself having read 13 Harris books, with several else in various stages of being read, and several more waiting to be appreciated.
Of particular importance are Comment 5 by me regarding Christinas comment 3 on the view(s) of communication in LIS and Comment 9 by David with the Harris suggestion. While I was critiquing someone else they graciously provided me a key to educate myself.
———. 2007b. Hjørlands Semantics and Knowledge Organization, pt. 1. Off the Mark, October 6. (accessed January 6, 2008).
With Hjørlands impending visit to GSLIS I closely re-read the article acknowledged in the title of this blog post (and entry) and the next entry. I made extensive notes and wrote them up as a number of observations and, perhaps mainly, questions in two successive blog posts in late September to early October 2007.
These posts are not primarily critiques or reviews of Semantics and Knowledge Organization but, more, my engagement with trying to re-read it via an Integrationist lens. This article is the one place in which Hjørland directly cites Harris, and it was also one of two recommended readings to prepare for Hjørlands Visiting Scholar Lecture. Thus, I wanted to give it a deep reading.
My comments in these two posts come to 11 printed pages when combined, with redundant material removed. Hjørland responded to some early and fundamental questions from my first post on the meaning of semantics and meaning.
The notes and questions in these blog posts will serve to focus my analysis of this extremely important article.
———. 2007c. Hjørlands Semantics and Knowledge Organization, pt. 2. Off
the Mark, October 7. (accessed January 6, 2008).
Please see the previous entry.
Love, Nigel, ed. 2006. Language and History: Integrationist Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Thirteen chapters on history in the study of language—philology, etymology, historiography of English, semantic change, and so on—compiled mostly from papers presented at the second conference of the International Association for the Integrational Study of Language and Communication (IAISLC), held in New Orleans, 26-28 March 2002 (Preface).
Includes two chapters by Roy Harris, History and Comparative Philology and How to make history with words.
Will be most useful for my CAS paper allowing for incorporating the perspective of history. Present here as it includes the Walrod chapter [see entry] which we read for Metadata Roundtable when Birger Hjørland and David Bade attended in October 2007.
Volume 4 in the Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic Theory series, edited by Roy Harris.
Taylor, Talbot J. 1990. Normativity and Linguistic Form. In Redefining Linguistics, 118-148. New York: Routledge.
Quite a good argument for the centrality of [a]gency, normativity, responsibility, authority, voluntariness, and correctness … in a redefined study of linguistic form (148).
Good example, along with the rest of the volume it is in, of Integrationisms critique of a field they feel needs serious reform.
Walrod, Michael R. 2006. Language: Object or event? The Integration of Language and Life. In Language and History: Integrationist Perspectives, ed. Nigel Love, 71-78. New York: Routledge.
Speaks to the necessity, and yet obfuscatory power, of metalinguistic language. I believe that in many important ways our semantic tools (Hjørland 2007a) are also metalinguistic tools, and that this fact has implications that matter for our theory and practice. This is one area I will be pursuing with vigilance in my CAS paper.
There is quite a bit in this critique that may have serious implications for our views on vocabularies; especially controlled vocabularies and higher-level knowledge organization tools such as taxonomies and ontologies.