I am quite bemused by "dynamic/everyday/narrative v.
synoptic/scientific/paradigmatic modes of meaning-making." what do the
slashes indicate? Are they post-modenist or the conventional "or" sign. I
really do not find it easy to interpret the lexical items of the second set
in their present collocation.
At one stage I had thought the issue was the conceptualisation of meaning in
language or meaning construed by language, but I must6 have got it wrong.
H'm well -- perhaps its that I am just not used to "dynamic" discourse
online. I was even more lost with your comment which I quote below:
Similarly, Halliday's dynamic/ synoptic distinction might be equated with
narrative/syntagmatic - to some degree!!, while synoptic highlights
the paradigmatic relationship between alternative lexicogrammatical
realizations of the same event, with a focus on grammatical metaphor
I most probably do not have anything very sensible from the points of view
of the direction of the present disdcourse on sense and meaning.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Wells" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:03 AM
Subject: [xmca] RE: meaning and sense and has anyone any opinion
> >Gordon, I've often thought along the lines you explore about how it
> >to Vygotsky's meaning/sense discussion. Maybe it reflects his roots in
> >philology. If so, then maybe we can push it a little further.
> >Gordon's list of alternatives were: "dynamic/everyday/narrative v.
> >synoptic/scientific/paradigmatic modes of meaning-making." When I see
> >"paradigmatic," I look for "syntagmatic." Maybe for Gordon this is in
> >or either "dynamic" and "synoptic?"
> >I understand paradigmatic and syntagmatic as mutually constitutive not so
> >much "versus." So, for example, for linguists (I think whether you look
> >back to Prague School or further to Panini) the copula verb ("to be" in
> >English) as a paradigm (for example: be am is are were been) is
> >tied to/emerging with its syntax (I am. She is. etc.). The syntagmatic
> >patterning is not just a methodological frame for the morphological
> >paradigm; neither one is necessarily primitive to the other (but theories
> >language might explore to establish this). Each constitutes the other.
> >So, maybe 'meaning' can be understood as the paradigmatic and 'sense' as
> >syntagmatic of a mutually constitutive set.
> I agree that syntagmatic complements paradigmatic. One way of
> interpreting Bruner's narrative/paradigmatic distinction might be
> that narrative is concerned with the relations between constituents:
> who does what to whom, when and for what reason. Similarly,
> Halliday's dynamic/ synoptic distinction might be equated with
> narrative/syntagmatic - to some degree!!, while synoptic highlights
> the paradigmatic relationship between alternative lexicogrammatical
> realizations of the same event, with a focus on grammatical metaphor
> through nominalization.
> I think I'm happy with your final paragraph above but I'll give some
> more thought to this.
> Gordon Wells
> Dept of Education, http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells
> UC Santa Cruz.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:10 PDT