12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday November 22, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6 (view source)
Revision as of 20:37, 31 July 2013
, 20:37, 31 July 2013update
----
----
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems|Contents]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems|Contents]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1|Part 1]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1|Part 1]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2|Part 2]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2|Part 2]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Document History|Document History]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Document History|Document History]]
•
•
</div>
</div>
The first option I call the ''object convention'', recognizing it as the natural default of informal language use. In the ordinary language context it is the automatic assumption that signs and expressions are intended to denote something external to themselves, and even though it is quite obvious to all interpreters that the medium is filled with the appearances of signs and not with the objects themselves, this fact passes for little more than transitory interest in the rush to cash out tokens for their indicated values.
The first option I call the ''object convention'', recognizing it as the natural default of informal language use. In the ordinary language context it is the automatic assumption that signs and expressions are intended to denote something external to themselves, and even though it is quite obvious to all interpreters that the medium is filled with the appearances of signs and not with the objects themselves, this fact passes for little more than transitory interest in the rush to cash out tokens for their indicated values.
The object convention, as appropriate to an introduction that needs to begin in the context of ordinary discussion, is the parametric choice that was left in force throughout the treatment of the A and B example. Doing things this way is like trying to roller skate in a buffalo herd, that is, it attempts to formalize a fragment of discussion on a patchwork of local scales without interrupting the automatic routines and default assumptions that prevail on a global basis in the informal context. Ultimately, one cannot avoid stumbling over the hoofprints (“…”) of overly cited and opaquely enthymematic textual deposits.
The object convention, as appropriate to an introduction that needs to begin in the context of ordinary discussion, is the parametric choice that was left in force throughout the treatment of the A and B example. Doing things this way is like trying to roller skate in a buffalo herd, that is, it attempts to formalize a fragment of discussion on a patchwork of local scales without interrupting the automatic routines and default assumptions that prevail on a global basis in the informal context. Ultimately, one cannot avoid stumbling over the hoofprints <math>( {}^{\backprime\backprime} \, {}^{\prime\prime} )\!</math> of overly cited and opaquely enthymematic textual deposits.
The second option I call the ''sign convention'', observing it to be the treatment of choice in programming and formal language studies. In the formal language context it is necessary to consider the possibility that not all signs and expressions are assured to denote or even connote much of anything at all. This danger is amplified in computational frameworks where it resonates with a related theme, that not all programs are guaranteed to terminate normally with a definite result. In order to deal with these eventualities, a more cautious approach to sign relations is demanded to cover the risk of generating nonsense, in other words, to guard against degenerate forms of sign relations that fail to serve any significant purpose in communication or inquiry.
The second option I call the ''sign convention'', observing it to be the treatment of choice in programming and formal language studies. In the formal language context it is necessary to consider the possibility that not all signs and expressions are assured to denote or even connote much of anything at all. This danger is amplified in computational frameworks where it resonates with a related theme, that not all programs are guaranteed to terminate normally with a definite result. In order to deal with these eventualities, a more cautious approach to sign relations is demanded to cover the risk of generating nonsense, in other words, to guard against degenerate forms of sign relations that fail to serve any significant purpose in communication or inquiry.
In order to deal with these issues of discourse analysis in an explicit way, it is necessary to have in place a technical notation for marking the very kinds of interpretive assumptions that normally go unmarked. Thus, I will describe a set of devices for annotating certain kinds of interpretive contingencies, namely, the ''discourse analysis frames'' or the ''global interpretive frames'' that may be operative at any given moment in a particular context of discussion.
In order to deal with these issues of discourse analysis in an explicit way, it is necessary to have in place a technical notation for marking the very kinds of interpretive assumptions that normally go unmarked. Thus, I will describe a set of devices for annotating certain kinds of interpretive contingencies, namely, the ''discourse analysis frames'' or the ''global interpretive frames'' that may be operative at any given moment in a particular context of discussion.
To mark a context of discussion where a particular set <math>J\!</math> of interpretive conventions is being maintained, I use labeled brackets of the following two forms: “unitary”, as <math>\{ J | \ldots | J \},\!</math> or “divided”, as <math>\{ J | \ldots | \ldots | J \}.\!</math> The unitary form encloses a context of discussion by delimiting a range of text whose reading is subject to the interpretive constraints <math>J.\!</math> The divided form specifies the objects, signs, and interpretive information in accord with which a species of discussion is generated. Labeled brackets enclosing contexts can be nested in their scopes, with interpretive data on each outer envelope applying to every inclusion. Labeled brackets arranging the ''conversation pieces'' or the ''generators and relations'' of a topic can lead to discussions that spill outside their frames, and thus are permitted to constitute overlapping contexts.
To mark a context of discussion where a particular set J of interpretive conventions is being maintained, I use labeled brackets of the following two forms: "unitary", as "{J| ... |J}, or "divided", as {J| ... | ... |J}. The unitary form encloses a context of discussion by delimiting a range of text whose reading is subject to the interpretive constraints J. The divided form specifies the objects, signs, and interpretive information in accord with which a species of discussion is generated. Labeled brackets enclosing contexts can be nested in their scopes, with interpretive data on each outer envelope applying to every inclusion. Labeled brackets arranging the "conversation pieces" or the "generators and relations" of a topic can lead to discussions that spill outside their frames, and thus are permitted to constitute overlapping contexts.
For the present, I will consider two types of interpretive parameters to be used as indices of labeled brackets.
For the present, I will consider two types of interpretive parameters to be used as indices of labeled brackets.
<ol style="list-style-type:decimal">
<li>Names of interpreters or other references to context can be used to indicate the provenance of the objects and signs that make up the assorted contents of brackets. On occasion, I will use the first person singular pronoun to signify the immediate context of informal discussion, as in <math>\{ I | \ldots | I \},\!</math> but more often than not this context goes unmarked.</li>
<li>Two other modifiers can be used to toggle between the options of the object convention, more common in casual or ordinary contexts, and the sign convention, more useful in formal or sign theoretic contexts.</li>
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li>
<p>The brackets <math>\{ o | \ldots | o \}\!</math> mark a context of informal language use or ordinary discussion, where the object convention applies. To specify the elements of a sign relation under these conditions, I use a form of presentation like the following:</p>
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
|
<math>\{ o |~ \text{A}, \text{B} ~|||~ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}, {}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime} ~| o \}.\!</math>
|}
<p>Here, the names of objects are placed on the left side and the names of signs on the right side of the central divide, and the outer brackets stipulate that the object convention is in force throughout the discussion of a sign relation that is generated on these elements.</p></li>
<li>
<p>The brackets <math>\{ s | \ldots | s \}\!</math> mark a context of formal language use or controlled discussion, where the sign convention applies. To specify the elements of a sign relation in this case, I use a form like:</p>
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
|
<math>\{ s |~ [\text{A}], [\text{B}] ~|||~ \text{A}, \text{B}, \text{i}, \text{u} ~| s \}.</math>
|}
<p>Again, expressions for objects are placed on the left and expressions of signs on the right, but formal language conventions are now invoked to let the alphabet letters and the lexical items of a formal vocabulary stand for themselves, and denotation brackets <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ \dots ] {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> are placed around signs to indicate the corresponding objects, when they exist.</p></li>
</ol></ol>
Although these devices for discourse analysis are bound to seem a bit ad hoc at this point, they have been designed with a sign relational bootstrap in mind, that is, with a view to being formalized and recognized as a species within the domain of sign relations itself, where this is the very domain that is laid out as their field of application.
When the information carried by labeled brackets becomes more involved and more extensive, a set of convenient abbreviations and suggestions for “pretty printing” can be followed. When the bracket labels become too long to bother repeating, I will leave the last label blank or use ditto marks, as with <math>\{ a, b, c ~|~ \ldots ~| {}^{\prime\prime} \}.\!</math> When it is necessary to break labeled brackets over several lines, multiple dividers and dittos can be used to fill out corresponding columns, as in the following text:
{| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%"
|
<math>\begin{array}{*{12}{c}}
\{ & I & , & o & | & \text{A} & , & \text{B} & & & &
\\
| & | & | & | & | &
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime} & , &
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime} & , &
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime} & , &
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
\\
| & {}^{\prime\prime} & {}^{\prime\prime} & {}^{\prime\prime} & \} & & & & & & &
\end{array}</math>
|}
A notation for discourse analysis ought to find a crucial test of its usefulness in whether it can help to disclose structural properties of interpretive frameworks that would otherwise escape the attention due. If the dimensions of interpretive choice that are represented by these devices are to serve a useful function, then …
Although these devices for discourse analysis are bound to seem a bit ''ad hoc'' at this point, they have been designed with a sign relational bootstrap in mind, that is, with a view to being formalized and recognized as a species within the domain of sign relations itself, where this is the very domain that is laid out as their field of application.
One note of caution may help to prevent a common misunderstanding. It is futile to imagine that any system of interpretive markers for discourse can become totally self sufficient, like the Worm Uroboros, determining all aspects of interpretation and eliminating all ambiguity. The ultimate appeal of signs, and signs upon signs, is always to an intelligent interpreter, a reader who knows there are more interpretive choices to make than could ever be surrendered to signs, and whose free responsibility to appropriate interpretations cannot be abdicated to any text or abridged by any gloss on it, no matter how fit or finished.
One note of caution may help to prevent a common misunderstanding. It is futile to imagine that any system of interpretive markers for discourse can become totally self sufficient, like the Worm Uroboros, determining all aspects of interpretation and eliminating all ambiguity. The ultimate appeal of signs, and signs upon signs, is always to an intelligent interpreter, a reader who knows there are more interpretive choices to make than could ever be surrendered to signs, and whose free responsibility to appropriate interpretations cannot be abdicated to any text or abridged by any gloss on it, no matter how fit or finished.
In a sense, at least at first, nothing is being created that could not have been noticed without signs. It is merely that actions are being articulated that were not articulated before, and hopefully in ways that make transient insights easier to remember and reuse on new occasions. Instead, the requirement here is to devise a language, the marks of which can reflect the ambient light of observation on its own process. It is not unusual to succeed at this in artificial environments crafted especially for the purpose, but to achieve the critical angle in vivo, in the living context of a natural language, takes more art.
In a sense, at least at first, nothing is being created that could not have been noticed without signs. It is merely that actions are being articulated that were not articulated before, and hopefully in ways that make transient insights easier to remember and reuse on new occasions. Instead, the requirement here is to devise a language, the marks of which can reflect the ambient light of observation on its own process. It is not unusual to succeed at this in artificial environments crafted especially for the purpose, but to achieve the critical angle ''in vivo'', in the living context of a natural language, takes more art.
===6.49. Combinations of Sign Relations===
===6.49. Combinations of Sign Relations===
At a point like this in the development of a formal subject matter, it is customary to introduce elements of a logical calculus that can be used to describe relevant aspects of the formal structures involved and to expedite reasoning about their manifold combinations and decompositions. I will hold off from doing this for sign relations in any formal way at present. Instead, I consider the informal requirements and the foreseeable ends that a suitable calculus for sign relations might be expected to meet, and I present as tentative alternatives a few different ways of proceeding to formalize these intentions.
<pre>
<pre>
The first order of business for the "comparative anatomy" and the "developmental biology" of sign relations is to undertake a pair of closely related tasks: (1) to examine the structural articulation of highly complex sign relations in terms of the primitive constituents that are found available, and (2) to explain the functional genesis of formal (that is, reflectively considered and critically regarded) sign relations as they naturally arise within the informal context of representational and communicational activities.
The first order of business for the "comparative anatomy" and the "developmental biology" of sign relations is to undertake a pair of closely related tasks: (1) to examine the structural articulation of highly complex sign relations in terms of the primitive constituents that are found available, and (2) to explain the functional genesis of formal (that is, reflectively considered and critically regarded) sign relations as they naturally arise within the informal context of representational and communicational activities.
----
----
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems|Contents]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems|Contents]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1|Part 1]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1|Part 1]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2|Part 2]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2|Part 2]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]
• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Document History|Document History]]
• [[Inquiry Driven Systems : Document History|Document History]]
•
•
</div>
</div>
