Re: [xmca] Antirecapitulationism and the Logical Impossiblity of Social Progress

From: Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab who-is-at>
Date: Sun Apr 06 2008 - 22:43:05 PDT


Just a small note

in my language the word consciousness is


i.e. knowing with - another person

7 apr 2008 kl. 00.33 skrev David Kellogg:

> No problem, Martin!
> In Halliday's 1992 essay "How do you mean?" (Collected Works,
> Vol. 1, p. 354) he says:
> "We have often pointed out that it takes two to mean; but we
> still tend to refer to consciousness as if it was an individual
> phenomenon, with the social as an add-on feature. I would prefer
> the Vygotskyan perspective, whereby consciousness is itself a
> social mode of being."
> I asked Halliday about this when I met him in Tokyo, and he said
> that he doesn't refer to Vygotsky much because he finds that when
> people do they do not mean what Vygotsky meant, but that he DOES
> mean what Vygotsky meant.
> The first page of the grammar is Halliday and Matthiessen,
> Introduction to Functional Grammar, third edition, p. 3, where he
> says the grammar purports to answer the question "Why does the text
> mean what it does (to me, or to anyone else)?" To me and to
> Widdowson, this suggests that a grammar, which necessarily
> decontextualizes language, can explain how texts mean.
> Widdowson criticizes this view at BOOK LENGTH in his 2004 work
> "Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis",
> which is essentially a reworking of his Ph.D. thesis. See
> especially 16-35, Chapter Two.
> David
> ---------------------------------
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
> Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Apr 6 22:48 PDT 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 01 2008 - 17:14:13 PDT