Hello Phil and Michael and all other colleagues
I have been (in terms of the Oz dialect) 'crook' these past 3 days and have not been able to use the screen at all. When I accessed xmca discussions last, people were happily discussing away. Apologies if I have skittled your discussion programme by falling ill. Coming today to the ongoing discussions, it seems there is too much to be able to respond to -- drowning in words!
I don't know if it would help at all for me to say a few words now by way of introducing my two papers. If the time has gone by and they cannot be discussed, my apologies once again. But otherwise here are a few ideas in brief.
In both papers I take issue with the 'reading' of Vygotsky's notion of semiotic mediation particularly because the conceptualisation does not appear to do justice to important social and linguistic facts. My basic assumption is that all semiotic acts are inherently mediating acts -- they mediate meaning, and the mediated meanings are critical to the development of consciousness. The question is what meanings, by whom to whom, and what consciousness.
In Semiotic mediation and three exotropic theories: Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein, there are at least two main issues and somethings are simply implied:
The first Issue:
Taking semiotic mediation by means of the mdoality of language as my focus, I tried to figure out more clearly the structure of the activity we know as semiotic mediation in this sense. I approached this issue by way of grammar to try to work out what the permitted and necessary participants and circumstances in the activity of semiosis are. My reading of Vygotsky (which is limited to English translations and discussions) has led me to claim that two areas are particularly unsatisfactory. First, Behind every act of semiotic mediation are social subjects; social subjects are necessarily socially positioned; participants' social positioning is varied in a society due to inequalities in the distribution of power and control. Because all semiotic acts are also ideological acts, and because ideologies and social positioning are inherently related by 'socio-logic', it follows that socially differentally located subjects will tend to mediate different orders of meaning. It follows that mental dispositions/habits formed by virtue of distinct ways of meaning by language will create different orders of consciousness. So different categories of speaker-mediator need to be recognised. To misquote Basil Bernstein, all experience of semiosis has the potential to mediate: the differences in what is mediated lie -- at least partly -- in speaker variation. This vairation and its consequences to the best of my knowledge are not recognized in Vygotsky, nor by those who seem to rcommend and use his work for educational purposes.
The second main problem lies in the conceptualization of the semiotic modality of language. Here my take is that of language as social semiotic. Thanks to Phil who has tried to present a wonderful summary upto the mid-70's (but important to emphasize that much developoment has occurred both in the analysis of discourse and in relating text and context -- in fact the theory of context of situation in this perspective is the theoiry of linguistic activity). Two points are particularly relevant (i) the modelling of language as a whole (on this please see Matthiessen on 'The architecture of language according to the systemic functional theory: developments since 1970' in Continuing Discourse on Language eds Hasan, Mattthiessen and Webster to be published by Equinox mid July 2005) and (ii) the absence of a theory of discourse in particular. In the modelling of language, the most glaring omission is that of grammar -- it is not as if Vygotsky never talked about grammar but in the work on semiotic mediation the importance of grammar is not exactly a hot issue -- far less a well understood issue. When it comes to discourse, which is inseparable from social context (what social activity, what social relation what modes of contact and organisation a propos which language is in use), this as Wertsch has noted is also not exactly prominent in Vygotsky with respect to semiotic mediation by means of the modality of language. It has been suggested that Bakhtin might supply the missing information. However, I have argued elsewhere (Hasan 1992 'Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the development of higher mental functions' Language Sciences Vol 14, No 4. Pergamnon Press) that Bakhtin's framework is neither comprehensive nor explicit enough to be able to do so.
For the first problem I suggested that Vygotsky's semiotic mediation must be read together with Bernstein's views on the role of socially positioned discourse in the formation of consciousness. Bernstein offers an excellent account of how both the reconition of a context and the 'schema' for performance in a context are susceptible to subjects' social positioning. For the second problem I offered Halliday's SFL as providing a support to Vygotsky's semiotic mediation because of all the models of language this is one which most clearly displays the power of language. In particular relevfant to Vygotskian position is Halliday's case study of a childlearning how to mean. His emphasis that learning language is learning how to mean: that this process has three essential aspects learning language, learning through language and learning about language. Also Halliday's register theory and his approach to discourse analysis provides a rish reszource for anyone interested in understanding how semiotic mediation by means of the modality of language comes about.
The second main issue:
I have argued in this paper that the specialisation whereby each discipline is treated as 'autonomous' to be studied in isolation from everything else is most probably not viable at least in the human sciences. What we need are theories that are "exotropic" meaning that they begin by locating their central problematic by relation to those phenomena which are active in its genesis and its evolution. That it is exotropic theories such as Vygotsky's (he placed consciousness in society, opened connection with semiosis and thus allows an account of the growth of human mind which is much more "real" than the rarified accounts of the "cognitive sciences") it is such exotropic theories that can 'dialogue' with theories of other 'related' domains and thus offer a better understanding of human life.
The implied issue:
This issue has to do with what is often offered by way of example as the paradigm examples of semiotic mediation relevant to the development of higher mental functions. I have maintained in both papers offered here for discussion that the examples are limited to knowledge of the kind that is relevant to "official" pedagogy such as logical reasoning, concept formation and so on. I would make two points: First, this emphasis on what counts as the most important materials for the making of developed minds is solely "ideational" in terms of Halliday; it is traditionally highly valued and has played an enormous role in our "exosomatic evolution". It dfinitely empowers manipulation and control of the universe. But this urge for control and manipulation has perhaps now become dysfunctional since it is being emphasised at the cost of our regard for the 'other'. If our conception of what constitutes "higher" mental function is limited to such phenomena of mental life and if this is accompanied by a disregard of the other, which is endemic to our educational systems -- in fact pretty much to our society as a whole -- then I fear that instead of evolution of the species, it may in fact push the human race towards the brink of extinction. The second point implied in this paper but developed a little more in the other (semiotic mediation in pluralistic societies...) is the relevance of paying attention to what is mediated completely unconsciously day in and day out in the life of young children and what therefore enters into the formation of their notions of what counts as relevant. Obviously, semiotic mediaiton can only succeed if the receiver receives with understanding; a condition for understanding is the recruitment of attention and engagement. Why should we expect that pupils coming from distinct social positions will all have the same notions of relevance, the same urge for engagement with the same 'knowledge'. Some effort is needed to create a way of meaning that turns out to be meaningful to all, not just to those who come pre-disposed to learn decontextualised knowledge structures. While saying this, I realise that there is a very strong trend whereby to talk of difference is more culpable than to participate in perpetuating difference, which we all do, willing or unwillingly.
Over to you all!
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Chappell
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Cole xmca glitch and other housekeeping issues
On Monday, July 04, 2005, at 03:31AM, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike and All,
In terms of timing, we're a week off the original schedule and now should be starting the third stream - disussing two of Ruqaiya's papers. The first, titled "Semiotoc mediation, language and society" introduces Bernstein into our picture, and because it uses Halliday's sociosemiotic theory in some detail, I thought it would help to post a summary of the key concepts of his theory, which I did last Saturday, headed "Language as Social Semiotic". Harry also posted his paper for ISCAR last Thursday as a starter to this stream.
In the meantime, returning to glossed issues is certainly proving fruitful - I have benefited greatly from the "transparency" discussion, and, as you say, it would be nice to hear from more of the silent ones ;-)
No 4th of July frivolities in this part of the world, so back to work!
Cheers,
Phil
It appears that I have been experiencing a glitch in receiving xmca model, perhaps associated with
a shift from weber to a different social science computer here at UCSD, so I have started going to
the xmca web page to keep get the sequence of posts. My apologies if my posts have been more
jumbled than their usual jumbled selves. Because it is a long weekend, this situation will likely continue
for a couple of days which may have the virtue, for you all, of reducing my volume of gabble.
In this connection, the LSV "concrete psychology" piece should be posted Tuesday.
Because I went to the web page I noted two things that I thought worth mentioning.
First, there are a lot of people on XMCA these days, and I am sure everyone would like to hear what
questions, observations, and noticings they have about the general theme of language and activity that
Phil and his team have put together.
Second, I am uncertain about where we are and what is appropriate to comment on. According to the
original schedule, Daniels and Hasan are presumably finished leading a discussion of the Hassan papers
but from the discussion we appear back a way.
Before you go off to your meeting, Phil, could you fill us in on where we are supposed to be?
mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that I have been experiencing a glitch in receiving xmca model, perhaps associated with
a shift from weber to a different social science computer here at UCSD, so I have started going to
the xmca web page to keep get the sequence of posts. My apologies if my posts have been more
jumbled than their usual jumbled selves. Because it is a long weekend, this situation will likely continue
for a couple of days which may have the virtue, for you all, of reducing my volume of gabble.
In this connection, the LSV "concrete psychology" piece should be posted Tuesday.
Because I went to the web page I noted two things that I thought worth mentioning.
First, there are a lot of people on XMCA these days, and I am sure everyone would like to hear what
questions, observations, and noticings they have about the general theme of language and activity that
Phil and his team have put together.
Second, I am uncertain about where we are and what is appropriate to comment on. According to the
original schedule, Daniels and Hasan are presumably finished leading a discussion of the Hassan papers
but from the discussion we appear back a way.
Before you go off to your meeting, Phil, could you fill us in on where we are supposed to be?
mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:00:52 PDT