From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 17:20:52 GMT
[Arlo]
Sometimes the words "language" and "semiotics" are erroneously thought to be
synonyms. Semiotics, at its simplist, implies a triad. A signifier, a
signifed, and an interpreter (in Peircian terms, the signified is the
"object", the signifier is the "representamen" and the interpreter is the
"interpretant").
This differs from Sausserian approaches as explained in Wikipedia. "Unlike
Saussure who approached the conceptual question from a study of linguistics
and phonology, Peirce was a Kantian philosopher who distinguishes "sign"
from "word", and characterises it as the mechanism for creating
understanding. The result is not a theory of language, but a theory for the
production of meaning that rejects the idea of a stable relationship between
a signifier and its signified."
Thus, even though the communication between infants and mothers, and between
interlocutor-adults, is "nonverbal" (and even "unconscious"), the meaning is
transmitted via semiosis. These "signs" are both cultural and learned, and
therefore only have "meaning" within an appropriate cultural context. (Or
perhaps, I'd say "intended meaning", what Peirce calls the "final
interpretant").
[Case]
Call it what you will this is a theory about symbol usage and manipulation.
The behaviors I have mentioned are not governed, mediated or determined by
signs, signifiers or interpeters. All of these are after the fact. They are
irrelevant to the events themselves. This does not diminish the importance
of semiotics. The tail is important as long as it is not waging the dog.
[Case]
Both seem to be genetically programmed as partners in a dance.
[Arlo]
Humans do appear unique in the world in the "depth" to which they can learn
(appropriate) a sign system. Some, like Tomasello, believe this to be the
key genetic evolution that occured millions of years ago in the (now) human
brain.
Chimps have been taught, for example, complex signs, and it appears that
they can manipulate them, but we have yet to see "species latching" in the
use of signs. That is, it is not culturally transmitted beyond the initial
generation.
Of course, chimps and other species routinely use what some call "primative
semiosis". With bees, it does appear that their semiotic "dance" is
genetically programmed, and not something learned.
This is an interesting area to me, and at present I am thinking that there
is a genetic basis for the abilities humans have in semiotic transmission.
But, I do not think that the patterns of semiosis are "hardwired", as they
appear to be in bees. Meaning, I think that the genetic basis affords only
possibility, but that the semiotic system of humans is learned. That is,
there is no genetically programmed "dance" of semiosis in humans. I can't
think, in other words, of any "sign" that comes with birth in terms of
signification value.
[Case]
Several researchers dating at least back to the 50s attempted several
strategies for exploring communication in chimpanzees. Washoe was taught
sign language by the Gardners in Nevada. Their graduate student Roger Fouts
later moved her to Oklahoma and she is said to have taught or at least used
signing with her infant. The work with Lana at Georgia State University
started with a fairly behavioral paradigm and by the end of her stay as a
research subject Lana was stringing together sentences of up to 10 words.
For polictical reason Lana was eventually returned to Yerkes Primate
Institute where she spent many years consigned to a cage with a sterile
male. I believe she did eventually get pregnant and may have been returned
to the language research project but I am not aware of what the results of
this were.
Lanuage and manipulation of symbols by non-human primate what fairly well
demonstrated but there was never agreement on what this meant. I would guess
that it would be transmitted from one generation to the next to the extent
that it was useful or enhanced the Quality of life among the chimps. That is
to say probably not.
There does appear to be a strong genetic componant to language acquisition
in humans but it is highly mediated by the child's environment.
[Case]
Humans are as easily conditioned as dogs in a Pavlovian sense.
In normal face to face conversations much, if not most, of the actual
information conveyed is not verbal.
[Arlo]
But still semiotic.
[Case]
No it is not. The semiotic triad as you describe does not enter into this at
all except as a description after the fact. It plays no causal role at all
and is not particularly useful in analysizing the phenomenon. It may or may
not describe what transpires but one can envision a plethora of ways to
describe something depending on what your interest is. I still fail to see
where this is helpful.
[Case]
What is profound or mystical about this "pre-intellectual" business?
[Arlo]
The type of communication you mention is "pre-verbal" (or maybe "averbal"),
but it is not "pre-intellectual". Indeed, I'm not sure you can ever hope to
describe "pre-intellectual" in any semiotic system. Of course, that's the
same thing as saying, I'm not sure you can ever hope to describe Quality
using words. Pirsig tried, by using tangental references and analogues. I
would think the same holds true of anyone wishing to use words to describe
the pre-intellectual condition.
[Case]
I think this illustrates the limited value these terms have in furthering
our understanding and so:
[Case]
My position is: Mu!
[Arlo]
Who let the cows out! Mu, mu, mu mu... :-)... mine too!
[Case]
Welcome to the herd. I see the communication has begun. Mu to You.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 07 2005 - 18:23:44 GMT