Bill,
you say:
> What I think this view of indexical-->symbolic progression is that it is
> necessary to look at ontogenetic and "mesogenetic" development
> simultaneously.
> But ultimately it would seem that what is symbolic is in essence what
> indexes
> people readily agree upon, and this is shaped by their history of
> co-development, which occurs as they participate jointly in activity. The
> collective movement towards tacit (and explicit) agreement, occurs not
> only
> through episodes of discordance (perhaps like cybernetic error functions,
> disagreement and tension but also puzzlement, curiousity, wonderment), and
> so
> also creatively.
Thanks for pointing this out so clearly - that is in essence what Halliday, Silverstein, Thibault etc are saying, too.
However, these are my problems with exactly that explanation:
In essence for the people to readily agree upon which indexes belong to the same symbolic meaning implies:
1. That meaning (of words) is stable and normative and mapped onto a categorical landscape of the thought processing.
2. That socially mediated development consists in gradual correction of children's errors untile chidlren's collection of indexes for any given concept is fine-tuned to the adult symbolic norm.
3. This can't explain polisemy which is so pervasive and prevalent in everyday language.
4. It can't explain real social mediation in which each meaning is constructed relative to particular social relationship and context of the event.
5. And even though you mention creativity as an ingredient of meaning development - it is not a part of the paradigm in which there is a norm to agree upon.
6. Essentially this view still deals only with the referrential function of language and speech. Social - dialogic aspects are grafted upon this view only as a corrective mechanism.
The real social mediation - making someone see things from a particular perspective and create relationships between them based on SIGNIFICANCE and not just on similarity - is not a part of this paradigm.
Strictly speaking - this paradigm could pertain to teaching a computer to speak - but not to the development of language.
I know that I sound very extreme. It is partially because it is very hard to get away from the abstract-objective paradigm that pervades all studies of language. I don't mean to say that there are no valuable insights in Thibault or Halliday - there are very many. All I am trying to do is construct another paradigm which is more consistent with the CHAT approach - in which social dynamics and social relations (on any level - from interpersonal to historical) play more than just a corrective role, where social relations and dynamic is seen as an integral part of and constituent of individual doings(including cognitive development).
I'll be away for several days - and if I don't find an internet connection I can use - I wish you all a great weekend and part of the next week.
Ana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:00:58 PDT