[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] concepts for LSV and us


It's interesting, isn't it, that Leopold confirmed my suspicion that metaphor should be thought of as part of the inner form of the word. And metaphor has both its established, one might say conventionalized, versions such as the "love is a journey" metaphor and others that Lakoff has articulated, and its creative and spontaneous versions, the fresh metaphors we invent on the spot and in the moment.

I think you're correct, Anna's word play is designed to evoke an understanding in the recipient that more conventional word choices would not permit.

On Apr 27, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Larry Purss wrote:

> Martin & Jay & Anna and others
> Commognition as a term Anna has coined to capture a relation between
> communication and cognition has an historical context that is a particular
> example of what I think Anton Marty is referring to as *inner form* .  The
> article Martin posted by W. Leopold  in 1929, exploring Anton Marty's notion
> of inner form, [that challenged Wundt's principle of parallelism of mind and
> language as a DIRECT outgrowth of mind] was helpful to try to grasp Marty's
> notion of inner form and Martin's further elaboration.
> For Leopold and Marty the SOURCE of language is NOT self-expression but
> rather the DESIRE for communication.  Creation therefore is purposeful,
> teleological and USES an inner form by CHOOSING EXPRESSIONS which are
> generally associated with the meaning the speaker is attempting TO EVOKE
> intersubjectively in order to communicate.  The speaker chooses a particular
> form that will LEAD [mark] the hearer to the correct *understanding*.
> However Leopold suggests if a universally associated form is not available
> [in the discourse community],
> "he selects another form, the habitual meaning of which is closely enough
> related to the actually desired one, by either contiguity or analogy, to be
> likely TO LEAD the hearer to the correct understanding with the help of the
> context.  Such an AUXILIARY concept Marty called (with Steinhal) the
> *etymon*, or, more frequently, the inner speech form." (p. 257)
> This auxiliary meaning LEADS or EVOKES in the hearer "primarily a conception
> which was NOT the desired meaning, but which helped to grasp it.  Leopold
> suggests EVERY metaphor falls under this category of *inner form* as
> auxiliary concept.  A speaker can boldly choose to create a new form as
> auxiliary meaning to EVOKE a specific meaning better than the conventional
> terms.  Anna's term *commognition* can be seen as an example of evoking a
> specific meaning that relates communication and cognition.
> Jay, you qualified your post with the comment,
> I just want to say that IF LSV meant that conceptual thinking happens ONLY
> through verbal signs, then I would disagree insofar as I believe it happens
> through more complex multi-modal sign resources, including not only
> language, but also visual signs, motor actions functioning as signs,
> emotional feelings functioning as signs, and pretty much anything
> functioning as a sign insofar as it can be "imagined", i.e. function in
> inner-directed meaning-making. (For outer-directed meaning-making actual
> physical objects / artifacts can also play a part in the total mix.)
> I hope as this conversation moves forward that *images* as they relate to
> commognition and concepts are elaborated.   I  agree with you that emotional
> feelings function as signs.  In conclusion, when talking about the place of
> *desires* in development the centrality of the desire to communicate
> [intersubjectivity, not self-expression] as foundational to
> cultural-historical/subjective development seems a good place to start
> Larry

xmca mailing list