On 01/06/2005, at 6:33 PM, Karin wrote:
> Epilinguistic activities are actions taken in interactional processes
> that result from a reflection that takes the very expressive resources
> as their object. According to Geraldi, who doesn’t agree with A.
> Culioli that epilinguistic activities are unconscious (and I’m going
> to try a rough translation to English now):
> “We could characterize the epilinguistic activities as activities
> that, being conscious or not, taking the expressions used as objects,
> suspend the treatment of the theme being developed by the
> interlocutors to reflect about the very expressive resources they are
> using. Those would be operations that would be manifested in
> negotiation of meaning, hesitations, self-corrections, reelaboration,
> long pauses, repetitions, anticipations, lapses, etc. and that are
> always present in verbal activities, and that have been studied in
> language acquisition processes as well as in the processes of language
> reconstruction by aphasic subjects (cf. De Lemos, 1982; Coudry, 1988;
> Coudry & Morato, 1988) ”
Karin, Peg, Ana et. al.
So we might say that those cited above are taking a dynamic perspective
of language in activity, whereby a logogenetic, unfolding of text
(meaning negotiation) is the focus, rather than a synoptic view of an
activity in a broader context? This dynamic perspective speaks to
constructions of everyday understandings of our world through language
as reflective object, which we can put up against a synoptic mode where
language might reflect more learned/schooled/higher processes?
Or perhaps I'm just saying what you said another way...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PDT