·

·

A Rhapsodic Maelstrom

Storelv, Sven 1986. Semiotics in Norway. In: Sebeok, Thomas A.; Umiker-Sebeok, Jean (eds.), The Semiotic Sphere. New York; London: Plenum Press, 369-385. [springer.com]

In the wake of prevailing structural linguistics in Norway in the postwar years an awakening interest in the semiotics of Saussure may be noticed in a certain number of areas of research. At the same time the international growth of semiotic activities, especially from the 1960s onwards, came to influence Norwegian scholars. (Storelv 1986: 369)

A brief perusal of newest semiotic papers from Norway immediately draws attention to the prevalent influence of French semiology and critical theory. Familiar names like Barthes, Bourdieu, Greimas, Kristeva, etc. appear frequently. The initial impression is that Peircean semiotics has only entered educational semiotics in Norway.

Some influence can also be attributed to the International Center for Semiotics and Linguistics at the University of Urbino in Italy. Norwegian scholars have participated in introductory and research courses in this center from the 1970s onward and have followed its activities through [|] the various publications which have come forth. (Storelv 1986: 369-370)

I don't think I've paid any mind to this institution. Maybe I should.

The most important factor for the development of semiotics in Norway in the 1960s and 1970s has been the prevailing influence of the French structuralist movement, which conveyed the legacy of Saussurian semiology. (Storelv 1986: 370)

Yuup.

In Norway the importance of Roman Jakobson for the development of a semiotic discipline was discovered mainly through the works of French intermediaries. In discovering Roman Jakobson, Norwegian scholars were brought into contact not only with the two different semiotic traditions of Peirce and Saussure, but also with the achievement of Russian and Czech formalism. The linguistic contributions of Jakobson were certainly known by linguistics specialists, but his works on poetics, poetical analysis, and semiotics remained practically unknown until about 1960s. (Storelv 1986: 370)

His "Linguistics and Poetics" really put Jakobson on the map.

A number of insights from Russian and Czech formalism had nevertheless become familiar through the famous book of Welelk and Warren, Theory of Literature, and V. Erlich's study, Russian Formalism, had alerted scholars and students to the importance of this vital school of criticism. Nevertheless the rediscovery of the Russian formalists by the French structuralist movement contributed to development in Norway focusing interest on the formalist critics. (Storelv 1986: 370)
  • Wellek, René; Warren, Austin 1949. Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. [Internet Archive | lg | ESTER]
  • Erlich, Victor 1969. Russian Formalism: History - Doctrine. The Hague; Paris: Mouton. [Internet Archive | lg | ESTER]
Two years later he [Tzvétan Todorov] edited a comprehensive collection of Jakobson's contributions to poetics, Questions de poétique (1973). This introduction to the works of Jakobson had been initiated ten years earlier by the first translation into French of some of Jakobson's linguistic contributions, Essais de linguistique générale (1963), which contained the key article Linguistics and Poetics. This famous article encouraged the linguistic and semiotic approaches to literary studies and convinced a number of Norwegian literary scholars of the need to be conversant with linguistic and semiotic theories and methods in order to avoid flagrant anachronisms. It generated a strong interest in the principles of Saussure's structural semiology, the model of the six factors and functions of verbal communication, and the binary principle as the key to the description of semiotic systems. (Storelv 1986: 370)

This I've also already taken note of in my cursory perusal of modern Norwegian semiotics: they're quite aware of Jakobson's six språkfunksjoner.

Another article by Jakobson (published in collaboration with Lévi-Strauss), the famous analysis of "Les Chats de Baudelaire" (1962), which gave rise to an interesting international discussion on the validity of Jakobson's approach, also found a vivid echo among Norwegian scholars. (Storelv 1986: 370)

That incomprehensible thing. In a first that might become a common phenomenon going forward, there is not a single trace of this source on the internet:

  • Storelv, Sven 1985. Les Chats de Baudelaire (Fleurs du Mal LXVI) En diskusjon av diktet. In: Kohannesen, Kjell S; Utaker, Arild (eds.), Strukturalisme og semiology. 2nd ed. Oslo: Solum Forlag, 43-55.
It is worthwhile noting that Jakobson's influence passed through the French resumption and development of his theories and methods, which came to be known as late as the 1960s and 1970s. This influence, it must be admitted, did not always come directly from the French sourc, but was conveyed by translations into Scandinavian literary reviews or magazines. Very important in Scandinavian cultural life are the inter-Scandinavian activities in intellectual and scientific fields. Considerable credit must be ascribed to Danish intellectuals who made great efforts to present and disseminate not only the theories of Russian formalism, but also the multifaceted achievement of Jakobson and the French structuralists who had been inspired by him. (Storelv 1986: 370)

I gather that Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are much more mutually intelligible than Finnish and Estonian.

In the postwar years, Norwegian linguists also underwent a conversion to structuralism. The development of Norwegian linguistics from comparative and historical linguistics towards a structuralist approach can be followed in the book published by Alf Sommerfelt, one of the most distinguished and representative figures of Norwegian linguistics, Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language, Selected Articles. (1962). An article he wrote in English, based on a series of lectures given at the University of Michigan, "Language, Society and Culture" (1954), may serve as an example of this conversion to structuralism, as also of the influence of American linguists like Sapir, Bloomfield, Whorf, but equally of Baudoin de Courtenay, Jakobson, Halle, and even Lévi-Strauss. The article concludes by asserting that a "formal, structural analysis must [...] form the basis of all research on language." (Storelv 1986: 371)

The article, "Language, Society and Culture" seems to be contained in the book, pp. 87-136:

  • Sommerfelt, Alf 1971. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language: Selected Articles. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co. [De Gruyter]
The first structuralist to have made use of semiotic theory and insights in his papers on linguistics seems to be Leif Flydal. Flydal's studies (from the 1950s onwards) show a marked interest in the theory of signs, and focus on problems concerning the line of demarcation between linguistic systems and other systems or means of communication. He distinguishes generally between linguistics as a sign system and other means of communication as symbolic systems. His concern for symbolic systems has lead him to study the symbolism of literary texts. Thus he is also the first to apply the resources of structural linguistics and semiotics to the study of style. (Storelv 1986: 371)

Flydal seems to have written mostly in French.

  • Flydal, Leif 1954. En språklig analyse av norske boktitler 1952: Morfemene i reklamens tjeneste. Skrifter fra Norges Handelshøskole: Språklige avhandlinger 7.
In psycholinguistics, semiotic theory and methodology constitute to a large extent the framework of the books of R. Rommetveit dealing with language, thought, and human communication. Rommetveit has been interested in issues of communication and message structure since the 1940s. Many of his social psychological studies seemed to converge in intriguing problems concerning interrelationships between language, action, and thought. The most important factor in his development has been his encounter, as a visiting professor at American universities in the 1960s, with the very heterogeneous and rapidly expanding field of psycholinguistics and structural linguistics in the United States. [.|.] Rommetveit's own theoretical work, in reaction against dogmatic scientific disciplines or formalistic escapism, is characterized by an eclectic and open-ended representation of the whole field of psycholinguistics. Since the beginning of the 1970s a new direction is noticeable in his work, inspured by such apparently divergent sources as Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Husserl's and Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological explorations, Bateson's studies of communication disorders, the semiotic investigations of Lévi-Strauss, and even the literary analysis by the structuralists of the Prague school. The colleagues and collaborators of Rommetveit at the Department of Psychology of the University of Oslo show in their scientific research much the same theoretical framework. (Storelv 1986: 373-374)

Now this is more like it. His bibliography is truly immense, some of them even easily accessible in some form or another (some are so close - Google Books has it but doesn't show preview, or e.g. there are later volumes, 27-31, of Norwegian Journal of Linguistics in Tallinn, but sadly not vol. 26). Rommetveit looks exceedingly promising. Not only because of the availability (some of his books, which are not on the internet, are in my university's library) and accessibility (they're in English), but because there appear to be numerous publications about him.

  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1968. Words, Meaning and Messages: Theory and Experiments in Psycholinguistics. New York; Oslo: Academic Press and UNiversitetsforlaget. [Internet Archive | lg]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1970. Verbal Communication and Social Influence. In: Wittenborn, J. R.; Smith, Jean Paul; Wittenborn, Sarah A. (eds.), Communication and Drug Abuse. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 69-78. [Google Books, no preview]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1972. Language Games, Deep Syntactic Structures, and Hermeneutic Circles. In: Israel, Joachim; Taifel, Henri (eds.), The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment. London: Academic Press, 212-257. [ESTER]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1972. Deep Structure of Sentences versus Message Structure, Some Critical Remarks on current Paradigms, and Suggestions for an Alternative Approach. Norwegian Journal of Linguistics 26: 3-22.
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1972. Språk, tanke og kommunikasjon: Ei innføring i språkpsykologi og psykolingvistikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [ESTER]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1974. On Message Structure. London; New York; Sydney; Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. [Internet Archive]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar; Blakar, Rolf Mikkel (eds.) 1979. Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication. London; New York; San Francisco: Academic Press. [ESTER]
Language is not studied in vacuo but in the light of the whole contextual background as an act of verbal communication. Communication theory and semiotic insights form, for instance, the fundamental perspective in the papers published by R. M. Blakar from 1969 onwards on language, power, social class and education, double-bind theory, and psychopathology. (Storelv 1986: 374)

Even more accessible! All but one item are readily available. One could make a day out of reading these papers:

  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel 1973. Context Effects and Coding Stations in Sentence Processing. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 14: 103-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1973.tb00099.x [Wiley Online Library]
  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel 1973. An Experimental Method for Inquiring into Communication. European Journal of Social Psychology 3: 51-68. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030405 [Wiley Online Library]
  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel 1973. Språk er makt. Oslo: Pax. [<ESTER]
  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel 1975. How the Sex Roles are Represented, Reflected and Conserved in the Norwegian Language. Acta Sociologica 18: 62-173.
  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel; Sølvberg, H. A. 1975. Communication Efficiency in Couples with and without a Schizophrenic Offspring. Family Process 14: 515-534. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1975.00515.x [Wiley Online Library, sh unpaginated]
  • Blakar, Rolf Mikkel 1979. Language as a Means of Social Power. In: Mey, J. L. (ed.), Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice. The Hague; Paris; New York; Mouton, 131-169. DOI: 10.1515/9783110815689-007 [De Gruyter]
The semiotic approach of Grønhaug and his colleagues in a relatively new feature of Norwegian social anthropology. Fredrik Barth, who has influenced most of the Norwegian scholars in this field, has been the connecting link between British and American "schools" and the Norwegian research milieu. Barth, however, in opposition to the ahistorical, anti-subjectivist and static structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, has stressed the dynamic transformational activities of enterprising individuals - the "entrepreneurs" - social interaction, and transaction. (Storelv 1986: 374)

Damn. Even more interesting, and likewise quite readily available.

  • Barth, Fredrik (ed.), 1973. The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway. Bergen: Scandinavian University Books. [Google Books, snippet view]
  • Barth, Fredrik 1966. Models of Social Organization. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Occasional Paper No. 23. [ESTER]
  • Barth, Fredrik 1967. On the Study of Social Change. American Anthropologist 69(6): 661-669. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1967.69.6.02a00020 [AnthroSource]
  • Barth, Fredrik 1971. Socialantropologiska problem. Vännersborg: Prisma.
  • Barth, Fredrik 1975. Ritual and Knowledge among the Baktaman of New Guinea. New Haven: Yale University Press; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Internet Archive | lg | ESTER]
  • Barth, Fredrik 1981. Models Reconsidered. In: Process and Form in Social Life, Selected Essays of Fredrik Barth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 76-105. [lg]
Grønhaug and his [|] colleagues, while applying structuralist methods, seem in their later works to take into due account the dynamic perspective and the social transformation processes of individuals in transaction and interaction, on these points following the main lines of Barth's theoretical studies. (Storelv 1986: 374-375)

A kind of redemption arc, but sadly unavailable. Especially irksome because the title features one of my all-time favorite pair of words: human relations. (Note to self: look deeper into the early 20th century "human relationism"

  • Grønhaug, Reidar (ed.) 1981. Transaction and Signification in Human Relations. Oslo; Bergen: Scandinavian University Press.
J. P. Blom (at the Department of Social Anthropology of the University of Bergen) seems early (from the late 1960s) to have made use of semiotic systems and procedures in an interdisciplinary field where social anthropology, music, and folkloristics meet in some overlapping boundaries. In several papers he has been dealing with notation systems and the problem of describing the rhythmic patterns of Afro-American, Balkan, and Norwegian folk music. (Storelv 1986: 375)

Not all that interested in rhythm, but Dell Hymes and John Gumperz can't go wrong:

  • Blom, Jan-Peter; Gumperz, John J. 1972. Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code-Switching in Norway. In: Gumperz, John; Hymes, Dell (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York, etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 407-434. [lg | ESTER]
A growing interest however in semiotic questions and problems can be observed among young research scholars at the Department of Sociology at the University of Oslo. Among these researchers Stein Bråten has published a series of books and papers on mass communication where communication processes have been analyzed and described from a semantic, pragmatic, or semiotic point of view. Bråten started his theoretical reflections in departing from the empirical semantics of Arne Næss, from whom he learned to study language utterances and meaning in a communication perspective, and adopted (from 1968 onwards), in accordance with this point of departure, a broad, eclectic view of semantics and communication, integrating into this theory strands from psycholinguistics (the school of Ragnar Rommetveit), semantics (the semantics of Ogden and Richards), behaviorist theories of meaning as a stimulus-producing process (Osgood), computer programs for semantic treatment of information (Bobrow) and cybernetic theories, social psychology, and sign theory (derived from Peirce and Morris). A brief presentation of this variety of approaches can be found in a book on signs and communication, Tegnbehandling og Meningsutveksling. (Storelv 1986: 377)

On the one hand Bråten's early work looks exceedingly interesting (Ogden and Richards!), on the other hand only a single item article listed here is available online in PDF form. His later works are available on lg: Bråten (ed.), On Being Moved: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy (2007); The Intersubjective Mirror in Infant Learning and Evolution of Speech (2009); and Roots and Collapse of Empathy: Human nature at its best and at its worst (2013).

  • Bråten, Stein 1968. Marknadskommunikation: analys och planering av extern kommunikation. Stockholm: Beckmans Bokförlag. [Google Books, bare entry]
  • Bråten, Stein 1971. Mass- och miss kommunikation: Kontakten mellan människor och media. Stockholm: Beckmans Bokfõrlag. [Google Books, bare entry]
  • Bråten, Stein 1973. Kodingskretsøp i symbolsk samhandling. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 14: 47-63. [The journal hasn't yet digitalized its earliest issues.]
  • Bråten, Stein 1973. Model, Monopoly and Communication. Acta Sociologica 16(2): 98-107. DOI: 10.1177/000169937301600202 [SAGE journals]
  • Bråten, Stein 1974. Coding, Simulation Circuits During Symbolic Interaction. In: Actes du 7e Congrès International de Cybernéthique. Namur: Association Internationale de Cybernétique. [stein-braten.com, plaintext on author's website]
  • Bråten, Stein 1980. Dialogical Systems Approach: Dissonance, Dualities and Time. In: Sosiologi og metodologi. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Instituttet for Sosiologi, 147-176. [Nasjonalbiblioteket, "Tilgang for norske IP-adresser"]
  • Bråten, Stein 1973. Tegnbehandling og meningsutveksling: Mot et sosialsemantisk systemperspektiv. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. [WorldCat, bare entry]
The key figure in Norwegian philosophy, Arne Næss, in many respects the founder and instigator of modern philosophy in Norway, had since his nomination as Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oslo in 1939 oriented the interests of students and scholars towards semantics and communication problems. Scholars like Rommetveit, Bråten, Zapffe, have learned from the semantic investigations of Næss not to examine language nad thought in vacuo, but to analyze utterances and propositions as part of a communicative situation. (Storelv 1986: 377)

We heard extensively about him in Paul McLaughlin's course on environmental philosophy but I wasn't aware that his early works had to do with communication theory. This is a very pleasant surprise. Sadly his Interpretation and Preciseness, the only item Storelv gives, is not accessible

  • Næss, Arne 1953. Interpretation and Preciseness: A Contribution to the Theory of Communication. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad. [Google Books, snippet view]
  • Næss, Arne 1949. Toward a theory of interpretation and preciseness. Theoria 15(1-3): 220-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1949.tb00152.x [Wiley Online Library]
  • Næss, Arne; Christophersen, Jens A.; Kvalø, Kjell 1056. Democracy, Ideology, and Objectivity: Studies in the Semantics and Cognitive Analysis of Ideological Controversy. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities. [Google Books, snippet view]
  • Næss, Arne 1966. Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; London: Allen & Unwin Ltd. [Internet Archive]
The early papers of Ingemund Gullvåg may not strictly speaking be characterized as belonging to the field of semiotics. They examine and discuss the "analysis of meaning" within the theoretical framework of logical empiricism and the empirical semantics of the communication theory of Arne Næss. Later papers from 1969 onward, oriented by the pragmatism of Peirce, Morris, and Carnap, discuss a metatheory of language and language use in a communication situation when all the factors - sender, receiver, sign system, and reference - are taken into account in the analysis of meaning. Gullvåg has also the merit of having introduced the large Norwegian public to the life and works of Peirce. (Storelv 1986: 378)

Yeah, I noticed that the early papers seem to be more prone to analytic philosophy. At least the book about Peirce is online - perhaps some VPN trickely would let me peruse it.

  • Gullvåg, Ingemund 1955. Definiteness and Intention. Filosofiske Problemer `17.
  • Gullvåg, Ingemund 1954. Criteria of Meaning and Analysis of Usage. Synthese 9(6): 341-361. [JSTOR]
  • Gullvåg, Ingemund 1967. Referense, mening og eksistens. Filosofiske Problemer 34.
  • Gullvåg, Ingemund 1980. Pragmatikk. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 1.
  • Gullvåg, Ingemund 1972. Charles Sanders Peirce: Utvalg og innledning. Oslo: Pax Forlag. [Nasjonalbiblioteket]
The papers of Dagfinn Føllesdal on the philosophy of language and the theory of meaning may in some respects be related to semiotics, in the sense that the study of semantics or the meanings of language utterances may be said to form an integrated part of the science of signs and the use of signs. (Storelv 1986: 378)

They do indeed look vaguely related:

  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1958. Mates on Referential Opacity. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 1: 232-238. DOI: 10.1080/00201745808601282 [tandfonline.com]
  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1966. Referential Opacity and Modal Logic. Oslo: Oslo University Press. [lg | ESTER]
  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1966. Review of Edmund Husserl's Theory of Meaning by J. H. Mohanty. Foundations of Language 2(3): 266-268. [JSTOR]
  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1967. Comment on Stenius's 'Mood and Language-Game'. Synthese 17: 275-280. DOI: 10.1007/BF00485031 [SpringerLink]
  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1973. Indeterminacy of Translation and Under-Determination of the Theory of Nature. Dialectica 27(3/4): 255-272. [JSTOR]
  • Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1975. Meaning an Experience. In: Guttenplan, Samuel (ed.), Mind and Language: Wolfson College Lectures 1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-44. [lg | ESTER]
Most of the papers on structuralism and semiotics written in the following years had the character of presentations of the main European semioticians. The only personal contributions to the theory of semiotics came from Arild Utaker. [|] Utaker's studies focus on the epistemological problems of semiotics. In his main work, Pilen og bildet (1974), he attempts to circumscribe a semiotic space limited by indices and images (metaphor). The theoretical basis of this space must be assured by a critique of the European and American traditions in semiotics. A semiotic critique of the ideology of semiotics must - in order to be valid and not ideological itself - relate semiotic theories to the social reality which is producing them and in which they function. (Storelv 1986: 378-379)

His main work, with barely a mention anywhere online.

  • Utaker, Arild 1974. Pilen og bildet: Bemerkninger til semiotikkens Problematikk. Bergen: Stensilserien, Filosfisk Institutt, No. 29. [Google Books, bare entry]
  • Utaker, Arild 1974. On the Binary Opposition. Linguistics 134: 73-94. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1974.12.134.73 [De Gruyter]
  • Utaker, Arild 1979. Semantics and the Relation between Language and Non-Language. In: Mey, J. (ed.), Pragmalinguistics, Theory and Practice. The Hague: Mouton, 103-128. DOI: 10.1515/9783110815689-006 [De Gruyter]
  • Utaker, Arild; Johannessen, Kjell S. 1977. Review of Linguistic Historiography and Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of his Linguistic Thought in the Western Studies of Language by E. F. K. Koerner. Linguistics 196: 65-82. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1977.15.196.65 [De Gruyter]
That Kittang is well familiar with the whole framework of French structuralism is apparent in the book of his selected essays, Litteraturkritiske problem. Teory og analyse, where he discusses the theories of Barthes, Goldmann, Althusser, Genett, Benveniste, Greimas, Todorov, Kristeva, Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, and Derrida. In an essay on literary realism, "Litterær realisme: Form, Kode, Ideologi," he gives a pertinent description of the signs characteristic of the code of literary realism (a descriptive, narrative and readable discourse) and discusses the ideological problems of the realistic mimesis, its double relation to the social reality outside the text. (Storelv 1986: 383)

This one is at least available, maybe:

  • Kittang, Atle 1975. Litteraturkritiske problem: Teori og analyse. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget. [Nasjonalbiblioteket]
  • Kittang, Atle 1977. Form, Kode, Ideologi. In: Bolckmans, Alex (ed.), Literature and Reality, Creatio versus Mimesis: Problems of Realism in Modern Nordic Literature. Ghent: Scandinavian Institute, University of Ghent, 22-43. [ESTER]
There is in Norway no research center for semiotic studies. Semiotic research work has been pursued only sporadically at various universities and high schools and it is difficult to localize this form of study or approach to particular institutions or university departments. The most important factor for the development of interest [|] in semiotic theories and methods has been the Nordic institution "Scandinavian Summer University" (Nordisk Sommeruniversitet) in the 1960s and 1970s. (Storelv 1986: 384-385)

This is quite frankly very sad. There are very few research centers for semiotic studies in the world as it is, and Norway could very well have made one for themselves. Historically, Brown University in the U.S. liquidated their semiotics programme in the late 1980s, while Estonia established one right as the Soviet Union dissolved. Brown probably changed it to general Media Studies because of the tedium with French critical theory, whereas the Tartu-Moscow School chronologically parallelled the "Scandinavian Summer University" (i.e. had "Summer Schools of Semiotics"), and had their own tradition to build upon. To me it looks like there is a tradition there in Norway, but there was no impetus - like the fall of the Soviet Union - to institutionalize it.

As far as publications are concerned, no journals have been founded - as they have in Denmark - for the presentation, discussion and reviewing of national and international semiotic activities or research work. Norwegian contributions to semiotics can be found in journals such as Norweg / Journal of Norwegian Ethnology, Norwegian Journal of Lingusitics, Norwegian Journal of Philosophy (Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift), Norwegian Journal of Social Sciences (Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning), Maal og Minne, Scandinavian Journal of Physiology, and Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. (Storelv 1986: 385)

Hopefully at least some of these have gone Open Access by now.

Gorlée, Dinda L. 1986. Semiotics in Norway: Signs of Life on the Fjords. In: Sebeok, Thomas A.; Umiker-Sebeok, Jean (eds.), The Semiotic Web 1986. Berlin; New York; Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 153-265. DOI: 10.1515/9783110861310-009 [De Gruyter]

The national stereotypes with which we label each other have often come under fire. Norwegians are allegedly glacial, melancholy, blond Vikings wrapped up in snowy scenery, born on skis but otherwise moving slow. And Norway is a peaceful highland on the outskirts of Northern Europe, inhabited by moose and reindeer and crisscrossed by majestic fjords. The fallacious and indeed near ridiculous quality of these clichés is demonstrated by recent news. Norwegians have entered the arena of international semiotics and are displaying a talent for putting their country on the semiotic map. (Gorlée 1986: 253)

Not sure yet if proficiency in semiotics negates the national stereotypes.

In his informative survey of 'Semiotics in Norway' (1986a), Sven Storelv covered the period from the end of World War II to the 1980s; the most recent bibliographical reference therein is to Braaten (1984). Storelv's chronological sketch reflects the emergence in Norway of semiotic activities inspired especially by the work of Roman Jakobson; Storelv highlights the fact that the further development of semiotics occurred mainly in the wake of French structuralism. This legacy of Saussurean semiology together with the later accomodation of the speech-act theories of Austin and Searle would explain why semiotics in Norway has been predominantly language-oriented. While Storelv does mention in his article several disciplines in which semiotic objects of research (social anthropology, music, folkloristics, animal communication, architecture, and, more recently, film studies) his survey shows that language-based objects of study have clearly prevailed. (Gorlée 1986: 253)

The pivotal role of Jakobson is also why I think that Norwegian semiotics could suit me better than other national semiotics.

In the beginning of the 1980s, semiotics in Norway entered a period in which the theory of signs was occasionally and unsystematicall yused as a methodological tool within literary scholarship, political science, media resarch, and social anthropology. On the whole the interest in French structuralist semiology appears to have been on the wane. This rather stagnant situation has been improved largely as a result of the growing awareness of the work of Eco and, through him, a closer acquaintance with the writings of Peirce. (Gorlée 1986: 254)

A strong emphasis on "occasionally and unsystematically".

This shift has meant that in the ongoing discussion regarding the relations between semiotics and structuralism (Hawkes 1977; Sebeok 1984), Norwegian semioticians tend more and more, explicitly or implicitly, to follow Sebeok and adopt a broad view of semiotics as hierarchically inscribed in the life science, biology, rather than narrowing it down and considering it tantamount to structuralism. Since semiotics and structuralism are two separate fields of research, structuralist semiology or the study of signs as signifiers is mainly concerned with how signs mean (and not what they mean), while the study of the signified belongs to the province of semiotics. Both disciplines are integrated without any contradiction into a broader critical analysis of more complex cultural phenomena (Davies 1985: 338). (Gorlée 1986: 254)

Commendable. Semiotics =/= structuralism.

'Chance' events weave their own patterns. When I moved to Norway in 1983, I brought with me from my home country, The Netherlands, an [|] outlook on semiotics as a full-fledged interdisciplinary field of research well on its way to becoming an organic part of the humanities and the social sciences. It seemed the right time and the right place to weave a semiotic web in Norway, to create an interdisciplinary forum enabling those working in isolation to meet and unite their semiotic endeavors, and to stimulate the further development of semiotics in Norway by joining the international network. (Gorlée 1986: 254-255)

The correct outlook. Any and every field of study can do with some semiotics, as illustrated by "Hans Primas, who, when writing a textbook on quantum mechanical chemistry, felt obliged to reflect on the philosophy of science" (Holenstein 2008: 15).

Two months after its creation, the Norwegian Association for Semiotic Studies started issuing a modest journal, Livstegn ('Signs of life'), which I edit. The title was taken from Sebeok's article in International Semiotic Spectrum (Sebeok 1984). A Norwegian translation of this article was included in the opening issue (February 1986). Livstegn is an interdisciplinary, multilingual publication aiming at strengthening the semiotic milieu at home, and at informing the members of relevant developments, events, and publications abroad. Livstegn is published at least twice a year and subscription is included in the membership dues of the Norwegian Association for Semiotic Studies. The journal publishes articles, reports, book reviews, bibliographies, communications, announcements, notes, and commentaries in the field of semiotics in all major modern languages. Papers of both members of the Association and of non-members are welcomed. Livstegn has also been added to the Master List of Periodicals of the MLA International Bibliography. As such, its contents will be indexed for inclusion in the annual Bibliography. (Gorlée 1986: 255)

Oh, so that's why I've been seeing that title (Livstegn) so frequently lately. Sadly, it looks like it only lasted from 1986 to 1992.

This first symposium of a young Association was to become the platform for two of the most distinguished 'masters of the sign'. Thomas A. Sebeok had at an early date enthusiastically accepted the invitation to come and present the keynote speech on 'The doctrine of signs'. And it was with the greatest delight and feeling of honor that the Norwegian Association for Semiotic Studies was able to receive Juri M. Lotman, from Tartu, U.S.S.R., as a guest at the meeting on what was his first visit to the West. The Association is especially grateful for the promptness with which the Norwegian authorities responded in this connection. It goes without saying that the presence of two of the greatest semioticians of their generation profoundly enhanced the status of the meeting. The members of the seminar thus had the unique experience of hearing, on the first day of the meeting, Sebeok survey the field of semiotics and, on the second day Lotman (through his interpreter, Jostein Børtnes) place semiotics within the Slavic cultural tradition in his lecture on 'The contemporary concept of the text'. It was an unforgettable experience. (Gorlée 1986: 256)

Oh dang. This page features a poorly scanned photograph of Dinda Gorlée, Thomas Sebeok, and Juri Lotman together at that event. I found a better quality image in the NASS Newsletter (2013, 4), which now decorates the beginning of this post.

In addition, there were altogether twelve shorter papers covering a wide range of topics: Tore Bjørgo (Oslo), 'The rhetoric of violence: Terrorism as political communication'; Jostein Børtnes (Bergen), 'Saint into signs: Some reflections on icons and hagiography'; Inger Christensen (Bergen) 'Literary women on the screen: The representation of women in film based on imaginative literature'; Otto Christensen (Bergen), 'The sound that disappeared, or what makes music music?'; Drude von der Fehn (Oslo), 'Structuralism, semiotics, and the hermeneutics of the Middle Ages'; Marian Flick (Bergen), 'Marketing manipulates Women's Lib'; David l. Fowler (Trondheim), 'The semantics of space-axis conjunct freezing'; Dinda L. Gorlée (Bergen), 'Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness, and Cha(u)nciness'; Elena F. Hellberg (Bergen), 'On riddles, masks, and jokes: A semiotic approach to folklore'; Bjørn Nic. Kvalsvik (Bergen), 'Historicity and productive imagination in narrative: Semiology's contribution to analysis'; Henning Siverts (Bergen), 'Broken hearts and pots: Suicide and patterns of signification among the Aguaruna Jívaro of Alto Marañón, Peru'; Olaf Øyslebø (Oslo), 'On non-verbal presentation of narrative characters'. (Gorlée 1986: 257)

Some of these sound very interesting. Oh well, given a time machine...

In lieu of formal training in general semiotic theory at the Norwegian universities, conference with both invited speakers and members presenting papers have to provide meeting places for the communication of research in the field of semiotics; Livstegn has to announce conferences and programs of advanced courses in semiotics organized abroad. In the further absence of any institutionalized center fo rsemiotic research in Norway, the Norwegian Association for Semiotic Studies has to function as a source of information (especially [|] bibliographical) and has to support and assist in coordinating all initiatives to further and strengthen at home and abroad. (Gorlée 1986: 257-258)

The fact that Livstegn ended in 1992 points to he possibility that the collapse of the Soviet Union had an adverse effect to semiotics in Norway. If and why that may be so is up to question.

Kristeva's work has also been discussed by Lars Saetre, who is a graduate student of general and comparative literature at the University of Bergen. Saetre's 1983 review article concentrates on Kristeva's essay 'The ethics of linguistics'; his 1985a article deals with Kristevan and Lacanian text theory; and his 1985b article is a Kristevan and post-Freudian analysis of Terjei Vesaas's novel Bleikeplassen. Among his earlier publications are a 1981 review article about Russian formalism and Czech structuralism and, together with Rakel Christina Granaas, a 1982 Greimasian text analysis of a history of Norwegian literature published in 1862. (Gorlée 1986: 259)

Again, sounds interesting, but when I google the title, only two links to this exact paper pops up, and nothing else.

  • Saetre, Lars 1981. Om ordkunst som teikn. ["On verbal art as sign"] Edda 1: 65-63.
Rommetveit has been as productive in the 1980s as he was in the 1970s; his recent work (1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1983d, 1984, 1985) includes publications on verbal communication as symbolic behavior and on the (im)probability of transmitting (literal) meaning through language. Rommetveit is, in his own words, 'in search of a truly interdisciplinary semantics', and his [|]c companions on this intellectual quest include scholars as distinguished and various as Bateson, Bühler, Chafe, Derrida, Eco, Føllesdal, Goffman, Habermas, Hintikka, Kristeva, Lyons, Malinowski, Schütz, Searle, Volosinov, and Wittgenstein. (Gorlée 1986: 259-260)

The plot thickens. Most of these are even easily available:

  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1982. On 'meanings' of situations and control of such meanings in human communication. In: Magnusson, David (ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenge Erlbaum, 151-167. [Google Books, -snippet view]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1983a. On the dawning of different aspects of life in a pluralistic social world. Poetics Today 4(3): 595-609. DOI: 10.2307/1772034 [JSTOR]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1983b. In search of a truly interdisciplinary semantics. A sermon on hopes of salvation from hereditary sins. Journal of Semantics 2(1): 1-28. DOI: 10.1093/semant/2.1.1 [Oxford Academic]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1983c. Prospective social psychological contributions to a truly interdisciplinary understanding of ordinary language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2: 89-104. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X8300200202 [SAGE journals]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1983d. Om förspråkleg kommunikasjon og språkutvikling i förskolealderen. ["On pre-verbal communication and language development during preschool age"]. In: Gravir, Magnhild (ed.), Barnet og talemåtet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 15-38.
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1984. The role of language in the creation and transmission of social representations. In: Farr, Robert M.; Moscovici, Serge (eds.), Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 331-359. [Internet Archive]
  • Rommetveit, Ragnar 1985. Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behaviour control. In: Wertsch, James V. (ed.), Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 183-204. [Internet Archive | ESTER]
Anne Stensvold deals with symbolic communication in a religious (Christian) context in her 1986 MA thesis, Sacred Communication: A Semiotic Approach to the Mass. Stensvold is now working on the interpretation of religious symbols transposed into a non-religious situation. Writing from a social scientist's point of view, Marianne Gullestad from the University of Trondheim focuses in her 1986 article on the contemporary Scandinavian idea of 'everyday life' as symbolized by the private home. This article approaches semiotics as it studies the processes by which traditional cultural values such as 'hometown' and 'neighborhood' have been overruled and replaced by this new symbol. (Gorlée 1986: 260)

Dammit. Both of these sound interesting, but the internet gives you nil. Showing up to Norway in person and photographing these with a smartphone appear to be the only way to get access until the Norwegians pick up digitalizing their stuff more seriously.

  • Stensvold, Anne 1986. Sacred Communication: A Semiotic Approach to the Mass. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Oslo.
  • Gullestad, Marianne 1986. 'Hverdagslivet' some symbol i norsk samtidskultur. [""Everyday life" as a symbol in Norwegian contemporary culture"] Dugnad: Tidsskrift for Etnologi 2-3: 17-31.
Eschewing all sensationalism, Heradstveit and Bjørgo define the act of terrorist violence as a semiotic sign. They describe and analyze the phenomenon of terrorism as a form of political communication in which a message is sent by the terrorist and received by his political enemy and/or enemies, while a third party, the victim, is made to stand for the enemy and thus functions as a sign-vehicle. (Gorlée 1986: 260)

Ahead of their time - this exact outlook has become somewhat popular in this century amongst semiotically inclined researchers in Islamic countries (e.g. Kailemia 2016, "The Spectacle of Terrorism: Exploring the Notions of 'Blind Acting Out' and 'Phatic Communication'").

The national stereotypes sketched in the first paragraph of this report always were, of course, something of a caricature. I am not suggesting, however, that the more accurate picture which has emergedi is of a Norwegian academe raving collectively about the theory of signs. But who knows, we may soon see semiotics in this country grow from sporadic wavelets into a rhapsodic maelstrom. (Gorlée 1986: 260)

It certainly seems like Norway has a pretty strong, if sporadic, tradition of semiotics that either fizzled out without state support or, which is more likely, is still sporadically flairing up and perhaps is lively even without institutional backing.

Their book, Politisk Kommunikasjon. Introduksjon til Semiotikk og Retorikk ('Political communication: An introduction to semiotics and rhetoric') (Oslo: Tano, 1987), will be discussed in next year's report. See also Bjørgo 1986. (Gorlée 1986: 261)

It doesn't look like Gorlée's report made it into The Semiotic Web 1987. Sadly, yet again one of those unavailable rarities:

  • Heradstveit, Daniel; Tore, Bjørgo 1986. Politisk Retorikk: Eit Kommunikasjonsteoretisk Perspektiv. NUPI-report 94. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt. [Nasjonalbiblioteket, bare entry]

Baecklund-Ehler, Astrid 1977. Roman Jakobson's Cooperation with Scandinavian Linguists. In: Armstrong, Daniel; van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.), Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press, 21-28. [De Gruyter]

In the paper delivered in 1936 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Prague Circle, its president, Mathesius, said that he used to discuss with Roman Jakobson, after the latter's move from Moscow to Prague in 1920, the need for a working center of young and inquisitive Czech linguists. And, in fact, Czech and Russian linguists closely cooperated in the new Prague association. Jakobson, the former chairman of the Moscow Circle (1915-1920), was elected vice president of the Prague Circle (1926-1939) and worked hand in hand with his Russian friends and fellow researchers in structural linguistics and cognate fields (such as N. Trubetzkoy, S. Karcevskij, and P. Bogatyrev). (Baecklund-Ehler 1977: 21)

Huh. I didn't know he was chairman and vice president of those circles.

  • Vachek, Josef 1966. The Linguistic School of Prague. Bloomington; London: Indiana University Press. [Internet Archive | lg | ESTER]
The leading representative of the young Norwegian linguist, Alf Sommerfelt, was the only Scandinavian scholar who took active part in the phonological conference convoked by the Prague Linguistic Circle in December 1930 on the initiative of Jakobson and Trubetzkoy; his lecture there is entitled "Sur l'importance générale de la syllabe." This Prague conference inspired Sommerfelt's first thoughts on the phonology of Celtic languages. Throughout the 1920's he carried on intensive phonological research, took an active part in the organization of an international phonological association initiated by the Prague Circle, taught and discussed phonology at Oslo University, and was the first to recognize the "fundamental importance" of Jakobson's ideas on distinctive features for the study of phonological structure. (Baecklund-Ehler 1977: 22)

Citation to the 1st volume (1939) of Acta linguistica, Revue internationale de linguistique structurale, which was edited by Brøndal and Hjelmslev.

In 1937 Hjelmslev visited the Prague Circle, and after presenting a paper, "Forme et substance linguistiques," was, like Brøndal, elected to membership in the Circle. Hjelmslev's effort to exclude "substance" from strict linguistic analysis led to profound disagreements with Prague phonology and with Jakobson in particular, but did not hamper a friendly and comprehensive discussion, continued by both linguists at Jakobson's home in Brno, on the Prague proposal of issuing a joint journal of structural linguistics, Acta Linguistica. This plan was accepted and further elaborated by Brøndal and Hjelmslev. However, in view of the worsening international situation, the Prague initiators felt forced in 1936 to leave their planned periodical "in the hands of our Danish friends." (Baecklund-Ehler 1977: 23)

I wonder if this has anything to do with scholastic theories of language, where "substance" might naturally occur.

Early in 1939, the efficient intervention and help of Brøndal, Hjelmslev, and Sommerfelt enabled Jakobson to escape from Czechoslovakia and to find refuge in Copenhagen (May-August of the year) and then in Oslo (September 1939-April 1940). In May 1939 he gave two lectures on the structure of the phoneme at the University of Copenhagen and another, on May 25 in the Linguistic Circle, on the zero sign. (Baecklund-Ehler 1977: 23)

Now I have the dates, whereas before I had vague recollections of his travels.

Jakobson's sojourn in Stockholm and in Uppsala, where he worked as a visiting lecturer in Russian, lasted from May 1940 to May 1941, when he left with Ernst Cassirer for America. A. Noreen's steps toward as tructural approach to the description of language were well known to Jakobson, who adhered to the definition and interpretation of prosodic elements proposed by this great Swedish linguist. In the early 1940's there were advocates of a structural inquiry into language in Göteborg and Lund (Hjalmar Lindroth and Bertil Malmberg) but none in Uppsala, and only two younger foreign linguists in the Hungarian Institute of the Stockholm Graduate School: Janos Lotz and Wolfgang Steinitz, with both of whom Jakobson entered into a continuing cooperation. However, both in Uppsala and in Stockholm Jakobson's research work, especially with regard to the acquisition and pathology of language, found recognition and support, and his fundamental and most influential monograph in this field, Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, was written and published in Uppsala, where also a Ph.D. linguistic thesis was written and defended under his supervision. (Baecklund-Ehler 1977: 5)

So that's why I associate his Scandinavian period more with Sweden, where he was only a few months longer than in Norway.

Nordenstam, Tore; Skjervheim, Hans 1973. Philosophy of Science in Norway. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie / Journal for General Philosophy of Science 4(1): 147-164. [JSTOR]

Recent debates in philosophy of science in Norway have centered around problems in the philosophy of social science. Although Norway has had the eminent scholar in symbolic logic, Th. Skolem, he failed to create any influential school. There is now a group of logicians of international standing in Oslo (Jan Erik Fenstad, Dagfinn Føllesdal, Ronald Bye Jensen, Dag Prawitz), but so far they have been somewhat unrelated to the main debate. This may be due to a general distrust of formal logic, partly deriving from Arne Næss on the one hand, and from recent English philosophy on the other hand, with influences from phenomenology and existentialism adding up to the same effect. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 148)

Are Norwegians just too individualistic to establish a school of thought?

Arne Næss (b. 1912) has played a unique role in Norwegian philosophy and social science. He was appointed to the chair of philosophy at the University of Oslo in 1939, and for two decades remained the only professor of philosophy in the country. A whole generation has been influenced by his textbooks in logic and philosophy. He played a decisive role in the development of the social sciences after World War II. His influence on the research milieu has been more on the personal level than through published work. Published work tended to be less important in the 40's and 50's when there was only one university in the country. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 149)

A parallel with Alfred Koort in Estonia.

The dissertation on knowledge and scientific behaviour was, in Næss' own words, "fiercely scientistic" (Næss, 1972, p. 134). Under the influence of psychologists like Watson, Tolman and vno Uexküll, Næss proposed that traditional theory of knowledge, science and meaning should be replaced by a purely behaviouristic science of science. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 149)

Uexküll has a habit of popping up in surprising places, still.

Næss's pluralism ("Let the radically different approach live!" (p. 107)), is coupled with "possibilism", to use his own terminology. "Anything is possible!" (p. 76). At one place in the book, this slogan is said to be directed primarily at the consumers of science, the so-called educated public (p. 76). At another place, the slogan is said to be intended to operate in research situations only (p. 94). But in both cases, the underlying motive is to counteract one-sidedness and narrowmindedness. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 152)

Sounds like eliminate the possibility of impossibility (cf. Ketcham 2018: 18).

Just after the war a group formed around Arne Næss, sometimes called "the Oslo School". To this group belonged Harald Ofstad, Arild Haaland, Herman Tennesen, Stein Rokkan, Ingemund Gullvåg and Peter Vessel Zappfe. The common platform was a broad interest in empirical research generally and empirical semantics specially. [↩] Of these people Stein Rokkan has later turned to political science, Arild Haalnad to a wide variety of philosophical and political problems. Harald Ofstad (in Stockholm since 1956) and Herman Tennesen (now [|] Alberta, Canada) have for external reasons lost contact with the Norwegian debate in the sixties. [↩] Peter Wessel Zappfe has in a much discussed work laid down the principles of a science of literature on empiricist grounds (Zappfe, 1961). [↩] But the man who is closest to Arne Næss also in his latest phase of development is Ingemund Gullvåg. He shares with Næss the broadness of scope, and has discussed in detail the problems of intentionality, total views and scepticism. Due to a certain inconclusiveness his work has not yet aroused the attention it might deserve. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 152-153)

Unsurprising some of these names, especially Gullvåg, are familiar from the first article in this post.

The anti-extensionalist thesis is further backed up with reference to the hermeneutic circle (in order to understand what somebody means by a particular expression, we must understand what language he uses, but "how can we get to know that otherwise than by trying to understand what he says?"; p. 25), and with reference to the importance of the subject's own definition of his situation. (If John makes love to Eva, who happens to be his sister, the nature of the situation depends crucially on whether John is aware of the fact that she is his sister (p. 27)). Human behaviour poses essentially the same problems of interpretation as human language (p. 28). (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 154)

Odd seeing the hermeneuticist's "psychological" interpretation (as opposed to the "grammatical") being set on par with the definition of the situation. These are worlds colliding.

According to Østerberg the main mistake of an objectivistic social science leads to an interpretation of action in the social field as analogous to technical action. The application of social science is then conceived as "social engineering". But such an attitude leads in practical situations to insincerity. Although this seems to point to a moral mistake, what Østerberg is hinting at is rather an intellectual mistake. This is shown by the following steps of reasoning:
  1. Objectivstic sociology tries to create a causal theory of social relations, and this theory should be applicable to social relations. In order to create such a theory one seeks to reduce social phenomena to - i.e. to define them by means of - observable, "molar" physical facts.
  2. The application of the theory, "social engineering", turns out to be a special kind of social interaction, namely systematic calculation and insincerity.
  3. Make-believe and insincerity presupposes just the distinction between meaning and facts, between the intention, the act itself, and its outer manifestation, the action-product.
  4. The social engineer is in principle in danger of being "disguised" by the people he manipulates, in a way that a natural scientist never is disguised. The social engineer can try to get into the calculation that his social objects know that he calculates them. And that he knows that they know that he tries to calculate them, etc., etc., but this is a regress that never stops. The engineer has landed in the tempo-riding for the meaning of the social, where the meaning in principle outruns the facts.
  5. The analysis of "social engineering" shows once again that "meaning is an irreducible category". (Østerberg 1961, p. 89. Translated by H. S.).
Soon after the completion of this work, Østerberg came to think that he had overstressed the "idealist aspect" of human action. Under the influence of Jean-Paul Sartre he has revised his platform in later essays. This meant a turn in the direction of marxism, and for some time Østerberg had an important influence on "the new left", at that time just beginning to form itself in the country. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 155)

A pretty good analysis of the faults with "social engineering". It is remarkable that this holds true half a century later, when so-called pick-up artists are the primary proponents of "social engineering", and they fail in their tasks exactly because the people they're interacting with recognize their actions for what they are, e.g. "Are you negging me right now?"

At this point it is necessary to make clear that Arne Næss and his critics in spite of the disagreement have a common platform. Using the distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics, they all assume that pragmatics in the fundamental discipline. [↩] But while Næss tended to look upon the problems of pragmatics as empirical problems, his critics tend to look upon the problems of pragmatics as problems of the presuppositions of any empirical inquiry at all. If the term may be used: they are seen as problems of transcendental pragmatics. [↩] This accounts for the turning away from traditional empiricism; instead authors like Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty have become important. [↩] This has been worked out in an independent way by Jakob Meløe, a former pupil fo Næss. [↩] In a paper written in 1965 but only recently published (1972a), Meloe starts out with what at first seems to be trivialities about language and communication. A statement is uttered by somebody to somebody. But in such a situation there is not only a content which is communicated. Certain meta-communicative acts have to be presupposed in order that the communication shall take place. "It applies to statements generally: In order to say that something shall be possible, it must be possible to say to (somebody) (henvende seg). It is perhaps possible to imagine a language where no statement is about something. But is it possible to imagine a language where a statement is not directed to somebody?" (Meløe 1970). What Meløe does not say but shows definitively is that an [|] analysis of language must start with the problems of pragmatics, and pragmatics is here conceived as an analysis of what necessarily must take place in a dialogical situation. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 156-157)

Okay, okay. This may explain why Nordic communication studies are so, uh, philosophical.

When the study of sociology started in Norway after World War II, it was heavily influenced by American sociology. The empiricist mood which prevailed in the group around Arne Næss resulted in a fairly narrow selection from the broad spectrum of American sociology. It is not a coincidence that Paul Lazarsfeld was invited to lecture on the nature of sociology at Oslo in 1948. C. Wright Mills has later taken this lecture ("What is sociology?", mimeo., Oslo, 1948) as an extreme example of what he calls abstracted empiricism (The Sociological Imagination, ch. 3). (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 157)

Damn, the three social functions in Lazarsfeld & Merton's "Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action" (1949) look extremely interesting.

Ferdinand de Saussure's project of a general theory of signs, a semiology, is, lastly, attracting the attention of a number of researchers within the human sciences. A research group consisting of philosophers, social anthropologists and others has been working on semiological [|] problems over the last few years, inspired by such figures as Derrida, Greimas and Lévi-Strauss, and with close connection to the Copenhagen group (Peter Madsen, Per-Aage Brandt and others). Some preliminary results have been published in the Norwegian journal of philosophy (e.g. papers by Kjell S. Johannessen, Atle Kittang, Arild Utaker, and Audun Øfsti in the 1970 volume of Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift), and there is more to come. (Nordenstam & Skjervheim 1973: 162-163)

Oh well. Ending the post with the exact thing it started.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)