How to Do Things With Words

We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.

The archaeology of knowledge

The four Visegrad states — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (until 1993 Czechoslovakia) and Hungary — form a compact area between Germany and Austria in the west and the states of the former USSR in the east. They are bounded by the Baltic in the north and the Danube river in the south. They are cut by the Sudeten and Carpathian mountain ranges, which divide Poland off from the other states. Poland is an extension of the North European plain and like the latter is drained by rivers that flow from south to north west — the Oder, the Vlatava and the Elbe, the Vistula and the Bug. The Danube is the great exception, flowing from its source eastward, turning through two 90-degree turns to end up in the Black Sea, forming the barrier and often the political frontier between central Europe and the Balkans. Hungary to the east of the Danube is also an open plain. The region is historically and culturally part of western Europe, but its eastern Marches now represents a vital strategic zone between Germany and the core of the European Union to the west and the Russian zone to the east.

Economy and Society

Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist

The cultural origins of human cognition

/pdf/the-cambridge-handbook-of-linguistic-anthropology-4xq4587ppy.pdf

The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology

This essay argues that the pervasive twentieth century understanding of meaning — a sign stands for an object — is incorrect. In its place, it oers the following definition, which is framed not in terms of a single relation (of standing for), but in terms of a relation (of correspondence) between two relations (of standing for): a sign stands for its object on the one hand, and its interpretant on the other, in such a way as to make the interpretant stand in relation to the object corresponding to it own relation to the object. Using this definition, it reanalyzes key concepts and foundational argu- ments from linguistics so far as they relate to anthropology and psychology. Such terms include: concept, intentional state, motivation, ground, iconicity, speech community, norm, performativity, joint-attention, embodiment, in- tersubjectivity, agency, role, functionalism, pragmatics, social construction, realism, and natural language.

http://www.envorganism.org/Article%20PDFs/The%20Semiotic%20Stance.pdf

The semiotic stance

Using a Peircean theory of meaning, agency may be theorized in terms of flexibility and accountability, on the one hand, and knowledge and power, on the other. In this theory, residential agency, which is closest to notions such as “power” and “choice,” is the degree to which one can control the expression of a sign, compose a sign-object relation, and commit to an interpretant of this signobject relation. Representational agency, which is closest to notions such as “knowledge” and “consciousness,” is the degree to which one can thematize a process, characterize a feature of this theme, and reason with this theme-character relation. Agency, as a kind of social and semiotic facility, is thereby theorized as multidimensional, graduated, and distributed. This theory allows one to analyze,

/pdf/agency-the-relation-between-meaning-power-and-knowledge-3ii9ffwqeu.pdf

Agency The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge

Stance may be understood as the semiotic means by which we indicate our orientation to states of affairs, usually framed in terms of evaluation (e.g., moral obligation and epistemic possibility) or intentionality (e.g., desire and memory, fear and doubt). Using data from Q'eqchi'-Maya and English, stance is operationalized in terms of complement-taking predicates and the grammatical category of status. Using frameworks from Goffman and Jakobson, it is argued that these lexical and grammatical domains disambiguate principals from animators (here called the commitment event and the speech event, respectively). It is argued that stances may be crosslinguistically grouped and ordered as a function of the degree to which the commitment event subsumes, or coincides with, the narrated event. And it is argued that “subjectivity in language” is not the issue; rather, research should focus on the intersection of a crosslinguistic account of commitment events and community-specific understandings of a speaker's contribution to event construal.

Stance and Subjectivity

The commodity is analyzed from a semiotic stance. Rather than systematically unfold a subject-object dichotomy (via Hegel's history as dialectic), it systematically deploys a sign-object-interpretant trichotomy (via Peirce's logic as semiotic). Rather than conflate economic value and linguistic meaning through the lens of Saussure s semiology, it uses Peirce's semiotic to provide a theory of meaning that is general enough to include commodities and utterances as distinct species. Rather than relegate utility and measure to the work of history (as per the opening pages of Marx's Capital), these are treated as essential aspects of political economy. And rather than focus on canonical 19th-century commodities (such as cotton, iron, and cloth), the analysis is designed to capture salient features of modern immaterial commodities (such as affect, speech acts, and social relations).

Paul Kockelman

Papers

The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology

The semiotic stance

Agency The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge

Stance and Subjectivity

A Semiotic Ontology of the Commodity