[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Using the grammar of [traces] in contrast to the grammar of [criteria] when exploring Chronotopes
I am reading an interesting article referring to Chronotopes that may extend the conversation on the topic of the *dialogical imagination*. The author is Calvin O Schrag who in 1988 gave a presentation that took place at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The conference was focusing on the theme “Models of Meaning” in particular focusing on linguistics and semantic theory. Calvin’s intent in his presentation was to show how [meaning and reference] live and move about WITHIN a Bakhtinian chronotope of assimilated historical time and assimilated historical space.
Calvin suggests that within this time/space chronotope we should shift from a grammar of criteria towards a grammar of traces.
Here is his reason for this grammatical shift in terms.
We speak of “traces of” meaning and reference rather than of “criteria for” meaning and reference. The grammar of criteria buys into a morphology of static structures and pregiven conditions that occlude the dynamic functioning of the trace in its spatial and temporal inscriptions. Criteria are theory based and front loaded. They are installed prior to the adventure of meaning disclosure. Traces are affiliates of praxis, resident WITHIN the space of the discourses and actions of the concrete lifeworld, always contextualized within the configurations of *sense* that inform our intertextured speaking and acting. They configure a presignitive and prepredicative intentionality that antedates any objectivating theoretical act-intentionality.
It is of primal importance to realize the grammar of trace as testifying of an entwinement of temporality and spatiality WITHIN the texture that binds meaning and reference.
It is in THIS *sense* that Calvin then pivots [being-towards] to Bakhtin’s notion of chronotope.
If others are interested I can add more on the relation of the grammar of *traces of* configured with the notion of chronotope but I will pause here to stay focused on the difference with the grammar of “criteria for”.
A difference that may make a significant difference to our exploration of *sense* *meaning* and *reference* within historically lived space and time.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10