The consistent them of " Methodologically, taking language as a fundamental
element of human interaction provides a host of methods for studying
comnunication of which the different genres of discourse analysis is just
one piece." seems to be a concensus view here. And, as often urged, we are
looking at discursive psych work.
On 8/22/06, bb <email@example.com> wrote:
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > Context is almost everywhere and is different almost everywhere.
> I was taking alterity almost to an extreme. On the other hand, taking
> context as consisting of sets of relations allows CHAT to begin talking to
> other areas such as social semiotics and systemic functional linguistics,
> which provide a richer language for the exegesis of human communication than
> in the paper by JW. I am coming to the opinion that taking only an
> alterity/intersubjectivity dialectic approach without some other ways of
> parsing what happens during communication is extremely limiting. It's not
> just in the over simplistic conceptual structure of just two elements, it is
> also, as JW aludes, in the need for methodology. Ideationally, Halliday's
> notion of meaning potential -- as the meanings that can be made with
> available language, and his notion or register -- how context shapes what
> language actually becomes used, add a lot of texture to description. I'm
> not adding anything new here. Both Grodon Wells and Jay Lemke have written
> scores around these ideas !
> and one
> of the most tractable is a chapter by Gordon in Dialogic inquiry, which
> locates register directly in relation to actiivty theory. Methodologically,
> taking language as a fundamental element of human interaction provides a
> host of methods for studying comnunication of which the different genres of
> discourse analysis is just one piece.
> anyway, must keep it short and be productive elsewhere.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2006 - 08:14:31 PDT