[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[Andy Blunden]

Yes, so we're almost in furious agreement on 'utterance'. 
But this contradicted by Akhutina saying 'the word is a  
compressed version of the utterance'. It is not. A 'word' is 
something else - it is a sign for a concept.

The limit case of an utterance, such as when a person 
responds: "Rubbish!" is also stretching the meaning of 
'word' to its limits, so I don't think this is what is 
meant. It is just wrong.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 18/03/2019 3:45 am, Helena Worthen wrote:
> I find it useful to think of an utterance as bounded on 
> two ends: on one, by the utterance to which it responds, 
> on the other, by the utterance that responds to it. Thus 
> you can discern utterances within utterances. Minimally, a 
> two -part exchange, as Martin says; maximally, a whole 
> stream of briefer utterances bounded by their prompt and 
> response.
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>> On Mar 17, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Martin Packer 
>> <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
>>
>> According to conversation analysts, the minimal unit in 
>> conversation is the adjacency pair: a two-part exchange 
>> in which the second utterance is functionally dependent 
>> on the first.  Question-answer; greeting-greeting; 
>> request-reply, and so on. An utterance, then, is both a 
>> turn and a move within a conversation.  An utterance is 
>> *not* “complete in itself” - it is a component in a 
>> larger organization: at least a pair, and usually a much 
>> longer sequence.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Andy Blunden 
>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would  have appreciated a definition of some kind of 
>>> what the writer actually means by "utterance." In 
>>> absence of that "the word, as a compressed version of 
>>> the utterance" is nonsense, or at least a step backwards 
>>> because it obliterates a concept. Otherwise, I wouldn't 
>>> mind saying that the two are together the micro- and 
>>> macro-units of dialogue (or something having that 
>>> meaning). The same as Leontyev has two units of 
>>> activity: action and activity, and Marx has two units of 
>>> political economy: commodity and capital. To theorise a 
>>> complex process you always need two units.
>>>
>>> The rest of what you have cited reminds me of what 
>>> Constantin Stanislavskii said about the units of an 
>>> actor's performance:
>>>
>>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/stanislavskii.pdf
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>> On 16/03/2019 5:42 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote:
>>>> Thanks for that conceptual jewel, mate.
>>>>
>>>> Let me bring here Akhutina to further show their 
>>>> complementariness:
>>>>
>>>> The minimal holistic unit of conversation is the 
>>>> utterance. An utterance, unlike a sentence, is complete 
>>>> in itself. The utterance always carries within it the 
>>>> marks and features of who is speaking to whom, for what 
>>>> reason and in what situation; it is polyphonic. An 
>>>> utterance develops from a motivation, “a volitional 
>>>> objective” and progresses through inner speech to 
>>>> external speech. The prime mover of the semantic 
>>>> progression (from the inner word that is comprehensible 
>>>> to me alone to the external speech that he, the 
>>>> listener, will understand) is the comparison of my 
>>>> subjective, evanescent sense, which I attribute to the 
>>>> given word, and its objective (constant for both me and 
>>>> my listener) meaning.Thus, the major building material 
>>>> for speech production is the living two-voice word. But 
>>>> polyphony is a feature of the utterance as expressed in 
>>>> the word; the word carrying personal sense is an 
>>>> abbreviation of the utterance. Thus, the utterance and 
>>>> the word, as a compressed version of the utterance, are 
>>>> the units of speech acts, communication, and consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Arturo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. 
>> Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, 
>> I become at once aware that my partner does not 
>> understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with 
>> the feeling that this also applies to myself” 
>> (Malinowski, 1930)/
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190318/44d704bd/attachment.html