[Xmca-l] Re: labour and signs

[Andy Blunden]

David Kellogg wrote:
> ....
>
> To tell you the truth, even the term "sign" is too abstract and
> general for me when it comes to language: it applies equally well to
> the size and color of the box as to the lettering on it, and while one
> of them is perfectly manageable using lower psychological functions,
> that is not true of the the other. So I am no longer convinced that a
> general theory of meaning (as opposed to a genetic account of meaning)
> needs to include signs at all; it seems to me that at a certain point
> the term "mental representation" is actually more useful, because it
> helps me understand what actually happens in the process of
> internalization.
"word" perhaps?
andy