Talk:Structuralism

message: Is Plato's dialogue Statesman a primitive example of Structuralism in practice? I don't know enough about Structuralism to answer this question, but the manner in which the Stranger from Elea analyzes the subject in an attempt to home in on the precise definition of the Statesman seems to be a curious anticipation of modern Structuralism. Eroica (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's ''Statesman'' 

message: Structuralism is a well-established concept in human and social studies, and for the most part this article takes the correct point of view. However, there is some confusion caused by the fact that the term 'structuralism' itself has been used in other sciences, too. The reference in this context should be sociological. Additionally, the concept of 'structuralism' is different in mathematics, biology, and psychology. It is best to use Dosse's two-volume work (vol. 1 and vol. 2) and related sources. Four main points:
* Chomsky and generative grammar or generative "formalism" is not a structuralist approach in the sociological sense. Any such idea is rejected by Dosse among others.
* Saussure's sociological approach is not derived from Wundt's Völkerpsychologie ("structural psychology"). 
* The Bloomfieldian school or so-called 'American structuralism' (as also discussed by Dosse) is not derived from Saussure and does not represent a Saussurean structuralist or sociological view of language. 
* As such, Chomsky's rejection of (American) "structuralism" does not relate to Saussure or structuralism proper in any meaningful way. What Chomsky argued against was behavioral psychology which is not related to this article 
EFK Koerner examined a large number of 19th century German grammars and related literature. As part of his historiography, he points out major confusion in some sources, and splits the classical approaches in two:
# The philosophical-psychological approach or 'Humboldtian trend': Humboldt, Steinthal, Misteli, Gabelentz, Finck. These are opposed to the historical linguists, and their 'current' is described as "static" by Mathesius. Chomsky can arguably be added here. 
# The neo-grammarian current of the Indo-Europeanists. Notice that these are historical linguists: Bopp, Paul, Saussure and his followers. Saussure himself cites Bopp, Grimm, Paul and Leskien; and of course Schleicher, Müller and Curtius, who formed their own trend within historical-comparative linguistics. So now we have three major 19th century schools of linguistic thought: (1) the 'universal' group; (2) the sociological group; (3) the social Darwinists. Weidorje (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is some considerable amount of OR in the essay above, but as long as all the changes suggested and/or finally made to the article are dully referred to Francois Dosse's 2 volumes cited above, paraphrasing his own arguments with page numbers, etc., they should be OK. I.e., I believe Dosse is indeed a reliable source for this article. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Warshy. I will remove all non-canonical elements (Panini, Wundt, Chomsky, Bloomfield etc.). I'll be back with improvements from Dosse later. Weidorje (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion