[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: labour and signs



David Kellogg wrote:
....

To tell you the truth, even the term "sign" is too abstract and
general for me when it comes to language: it applies equally well to
the size and color of the box as to the lettering on it, and while one
of them is perfectly manageable using lower psychological functions,
that is not true of the the other. So I am no longer convinced that a
general theory of meaning (as opposed to a genetic account of meaning)
needs to include signs at all; it seems to me that at a certain point
the term "mental representation" is actually more useful, because it
helps me understand what actually happens in the process of
internalization.
"word" perhaps?
andy