[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[Haydi Zulfei]

 Andy and esteemed XMCA,
It's our dilemma we meet the Dawn when you meet the Dusk. Now so many fruitful ideas and you have to forget the mutual consecutive turns.
As far as I can see there's no furious agreement. I think what could have been problematic for you (though you usually go direct to Tatiana for removal of ambiguities or problems) is the fact that she used "is" instead of "could be"...a compressed version of the utterance , as we can surely invariably say "A word could be something else", "It could be a sign for a concept". Any word can be seen in its state of liquidity and flexibility because it is not a fossilized Mantra or Elixir. When we were being bombed by Iraq (them by us) just one word came to rescue lives : "Run!!" or just "Hey". All other things which necessitated the use of the word "Run!!" and those things are what we usually call "context" had been going on many many times reviewed and worked out , delivered and received , and many a time this single word too was obliterated and powdered and dried out within the larynx of the articulating creatures. Explicating these very situations on TV they went with words and also utterances on interminable streams and strings.
This you have also learned from Vygotsky's reference to Tolstoy , from the "internal speech" predicated minimally or from the one sole "Allah" on the part of the Muslims on very many occasions which if were not for the underlying predispositions , required a plenitude of "utterances" minimal parings or broader.
Your sticking to "sign for -just-concept" puts one in Wonderland.
Sloppiness is a good term about Bakhtin whether in relation to his authoring of works still messy and foggy , the literary circle and the foundation , his struggle with the Soviet sole voice , the amputation? , his unprecedented attention to Dostoyevsky and the reason behind it (Lunacharsky) , the omission of a great part of his Magnum Opus now presented as an appendix , his way of averting and removing of "dialectics" replacing it with "dialogics" , and a game of approaching and distancing from the reigning power , his intermittent intervals of disappearance and re-emergence and survival to a relative good end , his dealing with terms such as addressivity , archetechtonics , polyphony , heterogloss (a glossary available) , etc. which makes reading his Opus very difficult (Thanks David for the help you gave me and my daughter on request!)
When you fossilize and give stable duration for "word" as some cliche just for "concept" , why then considering "limits" "gradation" "fluidity" for word and if you regard word as a cover for versatile tiding and ebbing phenomena "the stretching of the MEANING of word" and I will add "affectation" "circumstantial predispositions" "changeability caused by slips of the tongue" "popular and folk randomized misuse of words ending in fixation" "loan words in disguise and final crystallization" etc.etc. , again why so strict on the transitional alterable cover. 
As for the reduced case of "Rubbish" , it in fact kills the whole idea of voicedness especially poly-voicedness whether you believe it's wrong or exceptionally appropriate , to the point and plausible (thug in American Administration). For instance , if the addressee is horrified by such utterance and either is sunk in complete science using gaze or down-toning with a sigh running from the chest to the throat : Ah!! Mere Trash!! , the Human Communication disrupts.
Voice for Bakhtin was counter to another voice he did not like to hear , hated to hear it , in suffocation and strangulation he opted for what he did.
Haydi               
    On Monday, March 18, 2019, 3:45:18 AM GMT+3:30, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:  
 
  
Yes, so we're almost in furious agreement on 'utterance'. But this contradicted by Akhutina saying 'the word is a  compressed version of the utterance'. It is not. A 'word' is something else - it is a sign for a concept.
 
The limit case of an utterance, such as when a person responds: "Rubbish!" is also stretching the meaning of 'word' to its limits, so I don't think this is what is meant. It is just wrong.
 
Andy
 
   Andy Blunden
 http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm  On 18/03/2019 3:45 am, Helena Worthen wrote:
  
 
 I find it useful to think of an utterance as bounded on two ends: on one, by the utterance to which it responds, on the other, by the utterance that responds to it. Thus you can discern utterances within utterances. Minimally, a two -part exchange, as Martin says; maximally, a whole stream of briefer utterances bounded by  their prompt and response.   
     Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com 
     
  
  
 On Mar 17, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote: 
  
 According to conversation analysts, the minimal unit in conversation is the adjacency pair: a two-part exchange in which the second utterance is functionally dependent on the first.  Question-answer; greeting-greeting; request-reply, and so on. An utterance, then, is both a turn and a move within a conversation.  An utterance is *not* “complete in itself” - it is a component in a larger organization: at least a pair, and usually a much longer sequence. 
     Martin 
     
 
  
 
 On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote: 
  
 
I would  have appreciated a definition of some kind of what the writer actually means by "utterance." In absence of that "the word, as a compressed version of the utterance" is nonsense, or at least a step backwards because it obliterates a concept. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind saying that the two are together the micro- and macro-units of dialogue (or something having that meaning). The same as Leontyev has two units of activity: action and  activity, and Marx has two units of political economy: commodity and capital. To theorise a complex process you always need two units. 
 
 
The rest of what you have cited reminds me of what Constantin Stanislavskii said about the units of an actor's performance:
 
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/stanislavskii.pdf
 
Andy
 
   Andy Blunden
 http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm  On 16/03/2019 5:42 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote:
  
 
 Thanks for that conceptual jewel, mate.   
  Let me bring here Akhutina to further show their complementariness: 
  The minimal holistic unit of conversation is the utterance. An utterance, unlike a sentence, is complete in itself. The utterance always carries within it the marks and features of who is speaking to  whom, for what reason and in what situation; it is polyphonic. An utterance develops from a motivation, “a volitional objective” and progresses through inner speech to external speech. The prime mover of the semantic progression (from the inner word that is comprehensible to me alone to the external speech that he, the listener, will understand) is the comparison of my subjective, evanescent sense, which I  attribute to the given word, and its objective (constant for both me and my listener) meaning.Thus, the major building material for speech production is the living two-voice word. But polyphony is a feature of the utterance as expressed in the word; the word carrying personal sense is an abbreviation of the utterance. Thus, the utterance and the word, as a compressed version of the utterance, are the units  of speech acts, communication, and consciousness. 
  Best 
  Arturo 
  
    -- 
 Sent from Gmail Mobile 
 
 
  Martin 
  "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930) 
  
  
 
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190318/d00b8fcd/attachment.html