I am on weak ground to interpret semiotic theories, Bill. Wouldn't
semiosis depend on the history of the interpretant and the signs too?
One thing that seemed unusual in the article to me is that while a
link is made to what is referred to as social-constructivist theory
via the work of Anna and Igor, is that culture enters explicitly only
as "a cultural mediator of individual development." Another is that in
turning to developmental theory, Piaget is adopted as the conceptual
Elsewhere, "the semiotic web" is taken as the medium of human thought.
Isn't that web (shades of Geertz!) culture?
What do you make of that?
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:24:20 -0500, Bill Barowy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> "rather, the incorporation of tools into the activity creates a
> new structural relation in which the cultural (mediated) and natural
> (unmediated) routes operate synergistically;"
> I have taken this point made my Mike to be the basis for Vygotsky's method of
> dual stimulation -- using extant "structural relations" to co-create new
> ones, e.g. shown blocks called "bic", etc.
> And then, I also take there to be this similarity with Uslucan's writing:
> "semiosis relies upon the history of the interpretant, with whom
> interpretation is a putting-into-relation-of-prior-signs. "
> Or am i being mistaken?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST