Talk:Structuralism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Structuralism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Philosophy: Language / Continental High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language
	Continental philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Start‑class

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Performative contradiction#Usage in philosophy|Performative contradiction]] The anchor (#Usage in philosophy) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Plato's Statesman[edit]

Is Plato's dialogue Statesman a primitive example of Structuralism in practice? I don't know enough about Structuralism to answer this question, but the manner in which the Stranger from Elea analyzes the subject in an attempt to home in on the precise definition of the Statesman seems to be a curious anticipation of modern Structuralism. Eroica (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

Structuralism is a well-established concept in human and social studies, and for the most part this article takes the correct point of view. However, there is some confusion caused by the fact that the term 'structuralism' itself has been used in other sciences, too. The reference in this context should be sociological. Additionally, the concept of 'structuralism' is different in mathematics, biology, and psychology. It is best to use Dosse's two-volume work (vol. 1 and vol. 2) and related sources. Four main points:

Chomsky and generative grammar or generative "formalism" is not a structuralist approach in the sociological sense. Any such idea is rejected by Dosse among others.
Saussure's sociological approach is not derived from Wundt's Völkerpsychologie ("structural psychology").
The Bloomfieldian school or so-called 'American structuralism' (as also discussed by Dosse) is not derived from Saussure and does not represent a Saussurean structuralist or sociological view of language.
As such, Chomsky's rejection of (American) "structuralism" does not relate to Saussure or structuralism proper in any meaningful way. What Chomsky argued against was behavioral psychology which is not related to this article

EFK Koerner examined a large number of 19th century German grammars and related literature. As part of his historiography, he points out major confusion in some sources, and splits the classical approaches in two:

The philosophical-psychological approach or 'Humboldtian trend': Humboldt, Steinthal, Misteli, Gabelentz, Finck. These are opposed to the historical linguists, and their 'current' is described as "static" by Mathesius. Chomsky can arguably be added here.
The neo-grammarian current of the Indo-Europeanists. Notice that these are historical linguists: Bopp, Paul, Saussure and his followers. Saussure himself cites Bopp, Grimm, Paul and Leskien; and of course Schleicher, Müller and Curtius, who formed their own trend within historical-comparative linguistics. So now we have three major 19th century schools of linguistic thought: (1) the 'universal' group; (2) the sociological group; (3) the social Darwinists. Weidorje (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To what is said above, I know that some Indian scholars are trying to argue that Saussure created a formal theory of language based on Panini's method, which was further developed by Bloomfield and Chomsky. I don't suppose any of it is true. In fact, the final conclusion here seems reasonable. I would suggest removing Panini as irrelevant to this article unless there's evidence. Weidorje (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wundt is not discussed by Dosse, Koerner or Saussure, suggesting he is completely irrelevant to structuralism proper. However, it is well known that Wundt's Völkerpsychologie is a continuation of Steinthal's Völkerpsychologie per which he is placed into the 'static' group of Humboldt & Co., as opposed to the dynamic view of language of Saussure & Co. Weidorje (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is some considerable amount of OR in the essay above, but as long as all the changes suggested and/or finally made to the article are dully referred to Francois Dosse's 2 volumes cited above, paraphrasing his own arguments with page numbers, etc., they should be OK. I.e., I believe Dosse is indeed a reliable source for this article. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Warshy. I will remove all non-canonical elements (Panini, Wundt, Chomsky, Bloomfield etc.). I'll be back with improvements from Dosse later. Weidorje (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiang jiteng (article contribs).