Kappa wrote:Is it (...) correct to say that a language is necessarily a formal system?
no, on the contrary, it is a huge mistake. Even just looking at De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics would help to distinguish the terms a bit better. Here is a very brief introduction to the entry "birth of synchronic linguistics" http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistica
In order for a language (of any type) to be such, must it have a formal system?
http://it.wikipedia....Formal_system
no, as Carlos was saying, the idea of a formal system that you seem to have (confirmed by the link) has nothing to do with communicative languages, those traditionally studied by semiotics, nor even less so with music. Communicative and artistic languages are not formalized a priori, they do not follow rigid rules of formation, they are not subsumed under truth criteria etc etc
Linking back to postmodernism,
too easy, define "postmodernism".
si può dire che una certa musica non è un linguaggio musicale,
having denied all your premises, obviously I do not agree with this statement. But, furthermore, I point out that you haven't even defined "musical language". Define it, otherwise it is not understood what you mean.
since it is not a formal system, in this way we find ourselves without a critical tool to express a judgment of merit.
what kind of judgment of merit? I do not agree with anything you have said, but if by absurdity you were right, your reasoning so far says that music is a formal system and music that is not a formal system... is not music. What kind of judgment of merit is this? It is, according to Wittgenstein, a nonsensical sentence, a tautology that expresses nothing of the predicate. If I say that that thing there is not a chair, I have said nothing about its characteristics. In reality, I haven't given a "judgment of merit," I have given a relational judgment with respect to the rest of the world of things. I have said what that thing is not, not what it is or what it has.
If you say "this thing I am listening to is not music," you are saying nothing about it; rather, you have found a nice way to get rid of the problem. And I say this also to avoid drifts like "that which is not music is ugly." Painting is not music and it is not ugly. Exercise: find me something beautiful that is not a formal system.
My boyfriend and my kitty are not formal systems, for example.
One could object that music does not necessarily have to be a language nor even a formal system
believe me, many other things could be objected :-)
but I am not interested in this condition, which I find a bit poor in content.
then you are not interested in reality. And I am not interested in fantasy universes. Well, actually no, I am interested :-) and this is the proof that language is not a formal system, since I can talk about unicorns without this implying the falsifiability of the system. Once again, read Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations"}{
