You suggest that making such an abstract separation might be useful by
allowing different views of communication when backgrounding one function
or the other. I'd like to suggest that there might also be a serious
drawback to this notion, or at least there is a fruitful alternative to the
notion.
A world view for which function I (where both speaker and listener have the
same meaning for all words and phrases) _does not exist_ is potentially
quite different than one in which one could _choose_ to background this
function or not. If one had no recourse to assume that one could
background _or_ foreground function I in any situation; i.e., that this
interpretation was abandonned, then many practices involving communication
and interpretations (implicit or explict) of these practices would have to
be re-thought. This gives the potential for major changes in
interpretations and the practices. To take the approach of allowing
function I can be to allow the tacit or implicit interpretations reign
unexamined, defusing or blunting the potential for improvement.
Some reasons for deciding to try thinking about the world without function
I of communications in approximate order of increasing importance, I
believe:
1. ad hoc nature of function I...
I'd like to suggest that we can only decide that the appearance of a
situation in which function I is a fitting interpretation of a
communicative event _after the fact_ ...by observing the response of the
listener for fit with the apparent intention of the speaker. Even then we
cannot be certain that the reason for an appropriate response from a
listener was that intended by the speaker without further investigation, if
ever.
2. frequency of failure to achieve the conditions for function I...
It seems that most of the time in classrooms we are talking about a
fundamental failure to achieve the conditions for function I. This is true
in many other situations, politics, religion, relationships, etc. to one
degree or another. In fact, it seems to me that the need for an exact
match of meanings for all words, phrases, and gestures is likely never
achieved, hence the conditions for function I being a fitting description
do not happen.
3. interpretations reigning unexamined...
It's sort of like adding epicycles to epicycles in the Ptolemaic view of
the universe to save the notion of the perfect circular motion of
quintessential celestial matter. If we could break out of the Ptolemaic
view we can consider alternatives which might fit better and be more
satisfying. Maybe we're always doomed to add epicycles to epicycles and we
have to do this until a level of dissatisfaction is reached. At this point
it seems to me that one _might_ make a case that notions of scaffolding,
"scientific" knowledge (a la Vygotski), and prolepsis _could_ be a case of
epicycles added onto epicycles in an effort to save the existence of
function I of communications, (among other things such as the priviledged
position of history/culture, as it is viewed now or an objective realist
notion of our knowledge).
4. frequency of failing to observe that function I actually is a fitting
description...
The observation of the failure of function I in such high rates in
classrooms is the norm. This is painfully clear in typical science and
math education. How about in language classes, history classes, etc.? I
think the same is true.
...thought from someone trying to understand and be understood.
Dewey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++