Gary,
We have both wasted too much time in debating the word polyversity.
I did read your chapter, and I'll make a recommendation. But you,
as the author, are free to accept or reject my comments as you
please. I promise that I won't complain one way or the other.
no part of my definition of “polyversity” was intended for use
by specialists in linguistics...
Perhaps, but you did cite Talmy. And I thank you for doing so.
I bought his two volumes shortly after they were published (2003)
and read some, but not all of his 1000+ pages. Your comments led
me to review his examples of conceptual alternativity and his ideas
of using different "windows" to focus attention on different aspects
of a scene.
When I first read that, I wasn't thinking of Peirce's categories.
But I now realize that the mechanism of windowing is related to
Peirce's triad of Mark, Token, Type. Any scene, by itself, has
an open-ended variety of potential marks. A window consists of
a pattern or structure of related types. By applying a window
to a scene, the viewer interprets a subset of marks as a structure
of tokens that correspond to the pattern of types in the window.
Different windows correspond to different ways of interpreting
and talking about a scene.
My recommendation (which you may reject as you please) is to combine
Peirce's categories with Talmy's cognitive-linguistic analyses.
It's not necessary to go into all the linguistic detail of Talmy's
two volumes. But Peirce was a master at combining multidisciplinary
methods. I believe that he would approve of some such application
of his categories.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
