just an fyi -- i read this and thought of you! the context is a CHAT
posting about dense readingd of signs and semiotics (which i've skimmed
at best). that said, this post seemed directly related to your project.
again, this is a "for when i have a minute" moment and not for now.
Bill Barowy wrote:
>(Betting dollars to donuts someone disliked that song)
>What I'm wondering is, how does Peirce's semiotics stand in relation to
>activity theory, and specifically with Wartofsky's mapping? Where is
>intentionality in semiotics? Is it in this doubt that Don mentions?
>Here's a reminder of Wartofsky ala Engestrom, with the ref following from
>which it came:
>Wartofsky (1979) proposes three types of artifact that mediate human action
>and this class is developed by Engestrom (Engestrom, 1990) into a
>three-level hierarchy, mapping on to Leont'ev's (1981) hierarchy of activity
>. Primary artifacts are tools used directly in production to mediate the
>relationship between the subject and object of activity; secondary artifacts
>are representations of modes of action - models - used to preserve and
>transmit skills in the production and use of primary artifacts; tertiary
>artifacts are imaginative or visionary and give "identity and overarching
>perspective to collective activity systems" (Engestrom, 1990, p.174).
Mary P. Sheridan-Rabideau
Assistant Professor, Department of English
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST