[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Foot, Footprint, Footnote

Yes I thought we got along quite well thanks to your thoughtful care and
semiosic inventiveness!
Perhaps that is all that is needed to make these highly interdisciplinary
ventures work?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg:
> Here in Australia, we have a weekly seminar on Halliday and Hasan from two
> of Halliday's leading disciples--now both professors and (like Halliday and
> Hasan) married to each other. Sometimes they present and sometimes we do,
> but no matter who presents the seminars always end the same way, with David
> and Annabelle arguing about something that Halliday or Hasan once argued
> about. It's by far the most interesting part of the seminar, and sometimes
> the most useful too. So I don't think it mattered very much that we argued
> about indexicality in front of the kids. They probably just wondered if we
> were married.
> If I remember correctly, the problem was that I wanted to talk about what
> classroom observers see when they don't know any language, what they hear
> when they start to notice things like stress and intonation and pausing and
> speech rhythm, and what they understand when they finally crack the
> lexicogrammatical code. I thought that icons, indexes and symbols was one
> way to start sorting the data, and, since we're starting with data, I
> thought I would compare icons to flesh and blood feet, indexes to
> footprints on the wet sand, and symbols to a word like "foot" or "pied" or
> "jiao". Peirce for dummies. But useful.
> Now, as I understand Silverstein, he is reading Peirce because he can't
> stand Saussure (apparently Silverstein thinks that Saussure is
> anti-Semitic, for which the evidence is a little thin to say the least).
> For Saussure, who likes dualisms, the distinction is essentially between
> natural (experiential and logical) associations and non-natural
> (conventional, or "arbitrary") associations.
> Saussure incorrectly thinks that all linguistic associations are not
> natural (in fact, only phonological associations are not natural) and that
> all non-linguistic ones are natural. Silverstein points out, correctly,
> that there are many associations (e.g. between black people and hip hop)
> that are not linguistic...but not exactly natural either, and he chooses to
> call these indexical.
> Silverstein's point is correct, but his phrasing is a little problematic
> for what I want to say, because I want the students to be thinking about
> language specifically, and not the context of culture generally,
> comparing how much they can do without any experience of Korean culture at
> all with what they can do with some hypotheses based on their own language,
> and then comparing those with what they can do with real knowledge of the
> language. I'm not really making the case for the one over the other: I'm
> just laying out options; the actual decisions that people make will
> inevitably have to do with the linguistic resources at their disposal.
> But if I remember correctly, all we did was to set up a new set of terms.
> The foot is biomechanical, the footprint is indicative, and the word is
> signifying. That's a fairly typical social science move--when you find
> that someone is occupying the terminology you want to occupy, you just
> invent a new terminology. It explains why we have so many words for the
> same basic concepts. My point is that it's not a typical natural science
> move--in natural science you have to build on the terminology you find, not
> just slash, burn and move on.
> It seems to me that these two different tendencies are natural--that is,
> they are motivated, and each has strengths specific to its domain. The
> strength of the social science move is that it resists reductionism: social
> scientists resist the kind of article I read the other day in a medical
> journal, from a researcher who wants to "explain" the desire to learn
> language by a kind of functional pleasure released biochemically in the
> brain whenever we learn a new word. The strength of the natural science
> move is that it resists dualism: when you believe that biology rests on the
> foundation of chemistry and that chemistry rests on a foundation of
> physics, you live one world and not three. But just that one world is big
> enough to include feet, footprints and footnotes.
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University

Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602