The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language
Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including the...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Thibault, Paul J. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
12 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students - Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER, 2016transfer abstract, New York, NY [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:61 ; year:2017 ; pages:74-85 ; extent:12 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV035923636 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV035923636 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625210040.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2017012000015.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV035923636 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 400 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 400 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 004 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 150 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 300 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 630 |a 640 |a 320 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 48.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Thibault, Paul J. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 12 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. | ||
| 520 | |a Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Reflexivity |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Second-order language |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Written language bias |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a metalanguage |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Language stance |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a First-order language |2 Elsevier | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |a Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER |t Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |d 2016transfer abstract |g New York, NY [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV019457715 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:61 |g year:2017 |g pages:74-85 |g extent:12 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-FOR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 48.00 |j Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 61 |j 2017 |h 74-85 |g 12 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 400 | ||
| author_variant |
p j t pj pjt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
thibaultpaulj:2017----:hrfeiiyfualnugnadielvs |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
48.00 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 doi GBVA2017012000015.pica (DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl Thibault, Paul J. verfasserin aut The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language 2017transfer abstract 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students 2016transfer abstract New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV019457715 volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 61 2017 74-85 12 045F 400 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 doi GBVA2017012000015.pica (DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl Thibault, Paul J. verfasserin aut The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language 2017transfer abstract 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students 2016transfer abstract New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV019457715 volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 61 2017 74-85 12 045F 400 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 doi GBVA2017012000015.pica (DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl Thibault, Paul J. verfasserin aut The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language 2017transfer abstract 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students 2016transfer abstract New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV019457715 volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 61 2017 74-85 12 045F 400 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 doi GBVA2017012000015.pica (DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl Thibault, Paul J. verfasserin aut The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language 2017transfer abstract 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students 2016transfer abstract New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV019457715 volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 61 2017 74-85 12 045F 400 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 doi GBVA2017012000015.pica (DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl Thibault, Paul J. verfasserin aut The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language 2017transfer abstract 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students 2016transfer abstract New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV019457715 volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 61 2017 74-85 12 045F 400 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students New York, NY [u.a.] volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students New York, NY [u.a.] volume:61 year:2017 pages:74-85 extent:12 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Reflexivity Second-order language Written language bias metalanguage Language stance First-order language |
| dewey-raw |
400 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Thibault, Paul J. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV019457715 |
| dewey-sort |
3400 |
| id |
ELV035923636 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV035923636</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625210040.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2017012000015.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV035923636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">400</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thibault, Paul J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Reflexivity</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Second-order language</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Written language bias</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">metalanguage</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Language stance</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">First-order language</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students</subfield><subfield code="d">2016transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV019457715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:61</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:74-85</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">61</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="h">74-85</subfield><subfield code="g">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">400</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Thibault, Paul J. |
| spellingShingle |
Thibault, Paul J. ddc 400 ddc 004 ddc 150 ddc 300 ddc 630 bkl 48.00 Elsevier Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| authorStr |
Thibault, Paul J. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV019457715 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
400 - Language 004 - Data processing & computer science 150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences 630 - Agriculture & related technologies 640 - Home & family management 320 - Political science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 400 ddc 004 ddc 150 ddc 300 ddc 630 bkl 48.00 Elsevier Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 400 ddc 004 ddc 150 ddc 300 ddc 630 bkl 48.00 Elsevier Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language |
| topic_browse |
ddc 400 ddc 004 ddc 150 ddc 300 ddc 630 bkl 48.00 Elsevier Reflexivity Elsevier Second-order language Elsevier Written language bias Elsevier metalanguage Elsevier Language stance Elsevier First-order language |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV019457715 |
| dewey-tens |
400 - Language 000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems 150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology 630 - Agriculture 640 - Home & family management 320 - Political science |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV019457715 |
| title |
The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV035923636 (ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5 |
| title_full |
The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| author_sort |
Thibault, Paul J. |
| journal |
Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |
| journalStr |
Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
400 - Language 000 - Computer science, information & general works 100 - Philosophy & psychology 300 - Social sciences 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
74 |
| author_browse |
Thibault, Paul J. |
| container_volume |
61 |
| physical |
12 |
| class |
400 400 DE-600 004 VZ 150 VZ 300 VZ 630 640 320 VZ 48.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Thibault, Paul J. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |
| dewey-full |
400 004 150 300 630 640 320 |
| title_sort |
reflexivity of human languaging and nigel love's two orders of language |
| title_auth |
The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| abstract |
Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. |
| abstractGer |
Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 |
| title_short |
The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
ELV019457715 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T18:50:01.633Z |
| _version_ |
1803856696189124608 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV035923636</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625210040.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2017012000015.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV035923636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0388-0001(16)30139-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">400</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">004</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thibault, Paul J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love's two orders of language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nigel Love's distinction between first-order language and second-order language exposes the fallacy of the code view of linguistic communication. Persons do not ‘use’ the forms that are said to constitute a pre-existing language system; they adapt and shape their bodily behaviour, including their vocalizing, in accordance with community-level norms and practices that have historical continuity and thus define the cultural-historical traditions of a community. Individuals normatively orient to these continuities and self-reflexively engage in forms of situated appropriation of them as they flexibly adapt them to the requirements of situations in the pursuance of their goals. Love has shown how the capacity of languaging agents to evoke a linguistic ‘same’ depends upon their capacity self-reflexively to enter it dialogue with this tradition so that, for example, first-order utterance activity on a given occasion can be referenced with respect to the manner in which that utterance is experienced, to an aspect of how we are engaging with it. First-order languaging is an experiential flow that is enacted, maintained, and changed by the real-time activity of participants. To construe this flow as sequences of abstract forms is a radical misconstrual of what people are doing in their languaging. For a start, it is assumed that ‘language’ is constituted out of formal entity-like units that can be segmented and identified on analogy with the metalinguistic analytical practices afforded by alphabetic writing. Accordingly, language is seen, in part, as constituents (parts) and their combinations into wholes. Combinations of these constituents thus generate new wholes. This assumption is grounded in traditional entity-based (or substance-based) metaphysics. On the other hand, the term languaging serves to direct attention to the fact that processes and their organization across different spatial and temporal scales are fundamental. Bodily and situational processes in the here-and-now of first-order languaging interact with and integrate with cultural processes deriving from population scale cultural-historical dynamics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Reflexivity</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Second-order language</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Written language bias</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">metalanguage</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Language stance</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">First-order language</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Hsieh, Yi-Ping ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Associations between child maltreatment, PTSD, and internet addiction among Taiwanese students</subfield><subfield code="d">2016transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV019457715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:61</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:74-85</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">61</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="h">74-85</subfield><subfield code="g">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">400</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399255 |