Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this comparative paper I suggest that linguistic theories need to be discussed in terms of the metatheoretical presuppositions sustaining them. In view of Edda Weigand’s rejection of the linguistic sign and her critique of Roy Harris’ integrational linguistics for failing to abandon the sign as its working concept and not adopting a holistic model that accounts for the complexity of human communication, I will argue that the key to understanding linguistic theories is semiology, including tacitly assumed – since ‘commonsensical’ – beliefs about what constitutes ‘language’, ‘a language’ and ‘communication’ (i.e. the metatheory). I will further argue that methodological considerations are not the primary domain of semiology. This paper is designed (i) as an integrational critique of Weigand’s conception of human communication as intentional and intersubjective and (ii) as an affirmation that linguistic indeterminacy concerns both form and meaning.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Feynman, Richard
    2001The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Figueroa, Esther
    1994Sociolinguistic Metatheory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Harris, Roy
    1989 “The worst English in the world?” University of Hong Kong. Supplement to the Gazette36 (1): 37–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1996Signs, Language and Communication. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1998Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2009 “The integrational conception of the sign.” Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008, 61–82. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Mackay, Rowan
    2016 “Goodish. Integrating integrationism.” Language and Communication47(1): 89–93.10.1016/j.langcom.2015.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Orman, Jon
    2018 “Theorising the untheorisable. Notes on integrationism and the Mixed-Game Model.” Language and Dialogue8(1): 102–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Pablé, Adrian
    2009 “The ‘dialect myth’ and socio-onomastics. The names of the castles of Bellinzona in an integrational perspective.” Language and Communication29(2): 152–165. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2008.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2008.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Săftoiu, Răzvan and Adrian Toader
    2018 “The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns”. Language and Dialogue8(1): 21–42.10.1075/ld.00003.saf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00003.saf [Google Scholar]
  11. Weigand, Edda
    2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012a “The challenge of complexity. Body, mind and language in interaction.” InMoving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language, ed. by Ad Foolen et al. , 383–406. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ceb.6.15wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.6.15wei [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012b “Dialogue. Object and representation.” In(Re)presentations and Dialogue, ed. by François Cooren and Alain Létourneau , 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.16.01wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.16.01wie [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 “Preface.” Language and Dialogue5(3): 353–354. doi: 10.1075/ld.5.3.001pr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.001pr [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error