Hi again, and I appreciate several things about your post, including
the "mineral water" episode - I wonder if you could clarify the
following, where you introduce the concept of "interpretables"? I'm
just unsure, perhaps a little like Peter S, of looking at "chunks" of
linguistic behaviour without considering the non-linguistic signs.
Also, Jovan's activity, as you say, is a meaning-making process - I
wonder how his activity with the cushions on the floor might be
analysed with a focus on motive? He was certainly goal-oriented, and
carrying out a process that had social meaning for him and *his*
interlocutors, but I wonder whether he was "asking for permission to
play" with the cushions, or attempting to "pass on some knowledge he
has about planes" to you and Grandmother?
Just a thought or two.
On 23/06/2005, at 11:07 AM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
> The reason for that is that if utterance is considered as a unit of
> meaning then the "meaning" is still a category in the domain of the
> interpretables, i.e. what is a resulting meaning of a particular
> utterance in a particular situation -- is not only a matter of
> interpretation by the participants in that situation but also by a
> researcher. In other words, a researcher is still looking for what
> "chunk" or "fragment" of linguistic behavior refers to what "chunk" or
> fragment of the reality to which the participants refer at each point
> of development (on all developmental scales). However, referentiality
> of any size of the sign (word, sentence, utterance) is just one
> component of meaning making.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:07 PDT