The way I have construed this relationship, within a Leont'evian activity
theoretical framework (with its three strata of activity, action and
operation) is that material behaviour and semiotic behaviour (of the kinds
that can be loosely described as intentional sign-mediated communication,
such as spoken or written discourse, diagrams, etc.) are best seen
as complementary means through which an action is operationalized under
the prevailing conditions in a particular situation. In many activity
systems, such as organized games, production of material artifacts, etc.
the semiotic operation plays a largely supportive role (compared to the
material behaviour) in achieving the goal of the action. On the other
hand, in the activity system of formal education, scholarship, etc., the
emphasis falls much more heavily on the semiotic. In fact, actions such
as giving a lecture or holding a seminar or committee meeting seem to be
realized through semiotic operations to such an extent that there may
appear to be little distinction between the strata of action and operation,
In principle, though, I still think it is most satisfactory to distinguish
between the action of e.g. giving a lecture and the discursive/semiotic
operations through which the lecture-giving action is realized, if only
because there are nearly always material operations involved as well. (I
realize my use of this 'material' and 'discursive/semiotic' distinction
is not very satisfactory, as what I am here indicating by the term
'material' can also be considered semiotic - though, not I would argue,
in the same way as the 'discursive'.)
I have tried to set out this framework in a couple of recent articles:
Reevaluating the IRF sequence... Linguistics and Education, 5: 1-38 (1993)
Using the toolkit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching.
Mind, Culture and Activity, 3 (2): 74-101 (1996).
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca
OISE/University of Toronto.