PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 5, 2026Applied Linguistics Review0 citations

Reasserting the bedrock of personal experience: a semiological defense of anthropocentric linguistics

View Full Paper
APAdrian PabléUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland

Key Points

  • The article aims to critique posthumanist linguistics and emphasize the importance of an anthropocentric perspective.
  • Analyzes posthumanist approaches to language.
  • Incorporates theories from Roy Harris on integrationism.
  • Examines the limitations of decentering human agency in linguistic inquiry.
  • Demonstrates conceptual limitations of non-human-centric language studies.
  • Argues for a reclaiming of linguistic inquiry focused on human sign-making.
  • Advocates for a semiologically integrated view of communication.

Abstract

Abstract This article critiques the rise of posthumanist linguistics and emphasizes the need to reaffirm an anthropocentric perspective grounded in personal linguistic experience. Posthumanist approaches (weirdly) expand the boundaries of linguistic inquiry, incorporating non-human actors, artefacts, the dead, and spectral entities, while challenging traditional notions of language. Adopting a posthumanist stance shifts the focus away from the uniquely reflexive and experiential dimensions that make language inherently human. Drawing on Roy Harris’ integrationism (Harris 1996. Signs, language and communication . London & New York: Routledge, 1998. Introduction to integrational linguistics . Oxford: Pergamon) and the radical indeterminacy of signs in both form and meaning (Harris 2009a. Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008 . Gamlingay: Bright Pen), this paper champions a lay-oriented approach to human communication that rejects metaphysics and theoretical abstraction, instead viewing communicational activities as semiologically integrated. By analyzing posthumanist paradigms, including animal linguistics and ghostly voices, the article points to the conceptual and epistemological limitations of decentering human agency in favor of language-as-assemblage and language-as-distributed ontologies. Accordingly, this paper calls for reclaiming language studies as a discipline that recognizes the profound complexity of human sign-making, anchoring linguistic inquiry in everyday semiological experience.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Adrian Pablé (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a91f0ad6127c7a504c27a2https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0353
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Theoretical Issues of Anthropocentrism in the Context of the Development of Modern Linguistic Science2024
  2. 2Generative Language Patterns and the Phenomenon of Anti-Anthropocentrism — New Perspectives on the Linguistic Paradigm of «Posthumano» and «General/Strong» AI2024 · 1 citations
  3. 3Languaging and Practices: Intimations of a Singular Ontology2024 · 5 citations
  4. 4Introduction: Dialogues between Continental Semiotics and Linguistic Anthropology2025
  5. 5KEY CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC PARADIGM IN LINGUISTICS2025