[Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce

[David Kellogg]

Greg--It's Volosinov and not Bakhtin. "Dialogue in Art and Dialogue in
Life". And the dialogue is:

(Couple on a sofa. It is May. They are yearning for spring, and looking out
the window. Because this is Russia, it starts to snow....)

A: (looks dismayed)
B: (sounds resigned)  Well...!

And here the integrationists (who, like Halliday, take the work of BOTH
Firths--Raymond Firth and J.R. Firth very seriously) have a point. The
dialogue requires context to be comprehensible, and so we filter out
language and treat it as a n immutable code with some peril...

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New Article;

 David Kellogg (2019) THE STORYTELLER’S TALE: VYGOTSKY’S ‘VRASHCHIVANIYA’,
THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND ‘INGROWING’ IN THE WEEKEND STORIES OF
KOREAN CHILDREN, British Journal of Educational Studies, DOI:
10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200>


Some e-prints available at:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/GSS2cTAVAz2jaRdPIkvj/full?target=10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200




On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:56 PM Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Andy,
>
> Well...
>
> -greg
> p.s., Volosinov (Bakhtin?) has a lovely essay where he treats the word
> "Well..." as an utterance (or that is one translation of it - the other is
> "So").  So...
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:15 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Martin Packer <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> 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)*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190318/7289c11d/attachment.html