• Lingua Humanitatis
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.175-198
• /
• 2006

Quite a few historiographers of language science have measured the applicability of the term 'revolution' toward the line of work initiated by Chomsky, with the conclusion to the positive or negative effect as the case may be. This paper starts out with a brief review of this issue, with an interim conclusion that, while Chomskyan linguistics may be regarded as revolutionary in certain aspects, terms like 'revolution' and 'paradigm' are hardly applicable here in the way they were originally intended by Thomas Kuhn. It can be said, nontechnically, that the model of theory under discussion is at once 'revolutionary' and 'evolutionary' - in the sense that revolutions in linguistics have not resulted in abrupt loss of continuity with past 'paradigms', if there were any such. Chomsky's theory of language plays the same role of consolidation and refinement of structuralism that, say, the neogrmmarians played in their day. It has continued some fundamental traits of its predecessor, recovered others, and unwittingly rediscovered still others. But this is not the main thrust of the present paper. For, even if Chomskyan theory were to be looked upon as straightforwardly 'revolutionary', that revolution has not been a felicitous one. Some critic (Pieter A. M. Seuren, to be specific) goes as far as to say that "largely as a result of Chomsky's actions, linguistics is now sociologically in a very unhealthy state $\cdots$ to the point even of threatening to make that whole school of linguistics intellectually irrelevant." Besides, under the present state of language science that strikes one as typical of what Kuhn has characterized as "pre-paradigmatic" insecurity and disharmony, an unhealthy situation might take place if we were to think of the theoretical disagreements as conflicts between 'incommensurable' viewpoints-between 'rival paradigms' as it were-thereby avoiding or evading rational discussion. Another danger concerns the bandwagon effect, with linguists prematurely boarding each novel theory seemingly destined for popularity, for fear of being left clinging to an outdated 'paradigm.' Here lies another reason why the notion of 'revolution', Kuhnian or not, might as well be put aside, in the historiography of linguistics at the least.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.1 no.1 s.1
• /
• pp.218-227
• /
• 1992

What is Deconstruction which is now the focus of the current architectural discussion? In order to know the Deconstruction properly, we should review the background of Modernism and Post-Modernism in architecture. As we know, the 1968's serial uprisings of democratic movement in Paris changed human concepts about art dramatically. As the result of that movement new ideas such as Structuralism, Post-structuralism, Deconstruction, and Semiotics arose. In architecture some ideas like construotioniem were not practised fully in 1920's and only the Modernism has been realized as the idea expressing the modern Utopia. In Korea situation to interprete architectural ideas into real buildings are different from those of other developed countries. Korean architects are seemed to use Deconstructionist vocabularies as fashionable styles without being concious of the root and history of Deconstruction. For Koreans the contexts are different. Although Modernism and Functionalism have been practised vigorously in Korea as other countries, the situations are ambiguous and complicated in applying new ideas introduced after Moderism. So they are in chaos. What could be our orthodox ideology to be worth pursuing in arthitecture? There are several sample works of Deconstruction in Korea done by Jo, Geon young, Kim, In Chul and Bae Byung-Gil. Aithough their works cannot be interpreted as real Deconstruction in European or american view-points, I think they are good examples of Korean Deconstruction that express contemporary Korean architecture and its social background.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2003.05a
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2003

A semiotic approach to modern visual arts has emerged since French post-structuralism was introduced to Anglo -American academics by "deconstruction" or "postmodernism." It views a work of art as a sign, which is its methodical assumption ana at the same time makes its application more accessible In the milieu of modern visual arts'effort to be intimate to with general audience, modern art photography is now faced with the request to be a familar and universal domain instead of being left only in photo books as artistic and academic achievements More specifically, various photo images 1mm such visual media as newspapers TVs, and computer graphics to such megaexhibitions as "Gwangju Biennale," "Media City Seoul," and "Pusan International Art Festival," are main objects of s030y. A coherent and scientific analysis of visual semitotics is still on the way; however, it is an urgent task how to read and interpret a photo image with multiple meanings This study argues that visual semiotics can be a powerful tool to enhance the understanding of art photography. After all, semiotics is a product of age; we live in the age of legibility, that is, of reading the work of art well as the social events and phenomena.rk of art well as the social events and phenomena.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2003

A semiotic approach to modem visual arts has emerged since French post-structuralism was introduced to Anglo -American academics by "deconstruction" or "postmodemi sm." It views a work of art as a sign, which is its math odical assumption and, at the same time, makes its appli cation more accessible. In the milieu of modem visual arts' effort to be intimate with general audience, modem art photography is now fared with the request to be a familar and universal domain, instead of being left only in photo books as artistic and academic achievements. More specifically, various photo images puter graphics to such megaexhibitions as "Gwangju Biennale,. "Media City Seo ul," and "Pusan International Art Festival," are main objects of study. A coherent and scientific analysis of visual semitotics is still on the way, however, it is an urgent task how to read and interpret a photo image with multiple meanings. This study argues that visual seniotics can be a powerful tool to enhance the understanding of art photography. After all, seniotics is a product of age； we live in the age of legibility, that is, of reading the work of art well as the social events and phenomena. art well as the social events and phenomena.