Thanks a lot bb. That careful answer requires a careful reading. I am simply
uncertain if talking contraints/affordances talk or semiotic potential
talk are really disjunct, or alternative perspectives on the same set of
issues. I am pretty sure that invoking the notion of rules in the YE
expanded
triangle as = constraints will not cut it, since all interconnected parts of
the system offer both constraints and affordances. Contraints, after all,
are also affordances (If that seems myseterious, I can give an exampele ).
More to come on this and thanks again for the careful reply. For those
who may not know the reference how would you direct them to Gordon Wells'
"Halliday Vignette.?
On 1/21/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > What is the difference between constraints and affordances and semiotic
> > potentials?
>
> Affrodances, as you know Mike, stem from Gibson as what I would paraphrase
> as action potentials -- actions made possible by a "thing" or things. So
> I'll provide an instantiation to ground this notion: The design of a hammer
> affords driving nails into wood. The shape of nails afford being
> driven. Wood affords being driven into, steel does not. Constraints are
> closely related and provide the flip side of the coin. Trying to drive a
> nail in a small space is difficult -- the small space constrains the swing
> required to effectively drive a nail. With Norman and his followers, the
> notions of constraints and (perceived) affordances have been used for user
> interface design of software. I used these ideas for a user-centered
> approach to usability testing of the the RelLab software when I was at
> bbn. They are useful, but don't consider the actions of making meaning. I
> really wish I had known of Halliday's work at that time.
>
> I suppose because making meaning is taking action, in a very basic way as
> Leont'ev considers the three levels of activity, that they can be used for
> topics such as literacy learning, but my hunch is tha doing so will take a
> lot of work, when Halliday (and Hasan), and Lemke, and SFL in general (the
> latter of which I still feel to be a neophyte) has already made such
> progress in linking texts to making meaning. Another possibility is to
> relate constraints to Yrjo's category of rules, addressing the social
> aspects of activity.
>
> Gordon Wells' "Halliday Vignette" served as an excellent intro into
> relating Halliday and Activity theory. Halliday's work is, from the very
> beginning, considering language and social elements as integrated, whereas
> contraints and affordances, to the best of my knowledge, do not have such a
> fundamental social integration.
>
> Semiotic potential or, as Halliday phrased it earlier in publications such
> as 'Learning to Mean' and 'Language as Social Semiotic' (LSS), meaning
> potential, is:
>
> 1 a set of socially contextualized resources for behavior
> 2 is language that is related to situations of use (p34, LSS)
>
> Text is what people actually do and mean and say and write (p40, LSS)
> against the background of what they can say – the text is actualized
> potential. Text is the actual seen against the background of the
> potential. Register, also from Halliday, is the range of meaning potential
> activated by a situation -- which is why I'm excited about the mapping from
> the day schedule to the location of lessons in the room. Learning math
> happens in the math area (yellow rug), learning to read and write happens in
> the literacy area (red rug), where the materials and texts oriented towards
> those lessons are concentrated, providing the material means for activating
> those registers. The built environment is a semiotic design, where space (
> e.g.the room and its centers) and time (e.g. the day schedule) are
> integral elements of making meaning. Each makes its own contributions to
> the specialized texts that are collectively made by the children and teacher
> therein.
>
> In LSS Halliday has written:
> Consider the question of literacy, teaching reading and writing: what is
> learning to read and to write? Fundamentally it is an extension of the
> functional potential of language. Those children who don't learn to read and
> write, by and large, are children to whom [language] doesn't make sense; to
> whom the functional extension that these media provide has not been made
> clear, or does not match up with their own expectations of what languages is
> for. Hence if the child has not been oriented towards the types of meaning
> which the teachers sees as those which are proper to the writing system,
> then the learning of writing and reading would be out of context, because
> fundamentally, as in the history of the human race, reading and writing are
> an extension of the functions of language. This is what they must be for the
> child equally well. Here is just one instance of a perspective on language
> in the context of the educational system. (PG 57, LSS)
>
>
> bb
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:10 PST