>the dynamical relations
>between the material-but-not-necessarily-semiotically-significant
>aspects of ecosocial systems and activities, and the 'emic' or
>culturally salient and meaningful aspects of the processes and
>practices that constitute these systems through our activities
and suggests that there are differences (in the material aspects
of the practices we engage in) that do not make a difference
"in our public frames of reference." Jim Martin asked whether
those differences (that don't make a difference, that don't
_mean_ in conventional terms) might be implicated in some
"interpersonal or textual systems operating below consciousness"
And Stanton wrote, in support of Jim's point,
>Jay's comments raised the
>possibility that salient (ie, causally efficacious) contingent events
>might be less structured than we expect. But how could they have meaning
>(semiotic value) if there is no structure at all?
As I understood it,
Jay was saying there was _not_ semiotic value until a difference/event
DOES make a difference, which it does only when we ascribe some
place for it in the semantics/practices of the culture. I also
assumed that Jay was referring to pre-semiotic systems of relations,
or patterns we're not yet aware of. What have I gotten wrong, &/or
what am I missing?
- Judy
my own theoretical models have
for some time been trying to reformulate
In terms familiar here, Keil's theory points to a role for
_operations_ above and beyond the features they have which
define actions and activities. It suggests, to me at least,
that apprenticeship and socialization into a community of
practice may depend in critical ways on differences that
do _not_ make a difference semiotically, meaningfully, or
consciously in our public frames of reference -- or at least
those which explicitly 'count' for us -- but may make all
the difference in the world to how we in fact establish our
membership in a community.
If we assume that conventional (structure-referenced) accounts of
meaning are made retrospectively, after-the-fact, in ongoing discourse,
then we need not assume that the contingent events that become
significant derive from some unconscious
- implying that Jim Martin's
that some dialectic
between the infra-semiotic, operational level of behavior (the
micro-timings and spatial subtleties) and the overtly signifying
level(s) is involved in creating the possibilities for what
can become meaningful, and for potential future differentiations
based on such subtleties (from inflection to dialect, from
style to code).
At 12:37 PM 3/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>I thought Dr. Martin's question was an important one. As we discover that
>improvised and contingent aspects of human activities are more important
>than decontextualized, structuralist accounts of meaning would have us
>believe, we face the question of how to understand contingency. Our
>analytic tools point us toward structure and consistency. But we need to
>understand contextualized structure.
>
>Stanton Wortham
>
>
>
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University
.................................................