X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-else-reply-to: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:35:09 PST
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject:      Re: o tell me where is meaning bred
              11 Nov 1992 08:38:07 -0800
              <92Nov11.111653pst.12634@alpha.xerox.com>

(penni sibun 921112.1600)

   [From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 921111 10:59:45)]

   No, I am not saying that meaning is everything, I am saying that each
   thing "has" specific meanings.  Understand that every "thing" is a
   perception, and each meaning is another perception.  I am not saying
   that a given thing/perception "has property x" i.e. has meaning in some
   vague, generalized sense of "the property of meaning." I am saying that
   each given thing-perception has associated with it specific other
   thing/perceptions, differently for each

as stated, this is either circular or leads to infinite regress.  i
think perhaps you're trying to say that meaning inheres in the
structure of relations bet. perceptions.  that's fine, but then i
wonder why it's necessary to call it ``meaning'' rather than
``structure'' or ``assocations'' or something like that.

   A word W "means" certain other perceptions for a given person at a given
   time.
   ....
   Verbal perceptions are distinguished from most nonverbal perceptions in
   that they participate in a conventionalized structure by which people
   create and transmit information.  There are iconographic systems that
   are not so articulate, and there are language-like artifacts (notably
   mathematics and logic) that lack the flexibility and informational
   capacity of language, which are also distinct from other nonverbal
   perceptions insofar as they are structured according to agreed
   conventions.

i think you are, roughly, equating words w/ verbal perceptions.
correct me if i'm wrong!  although you are obviously attentive to the
social context of language, i don't see your proposal as any different
from the venerable view of language as encoding/decoding meanings from
my head to yours and vice versa (you say ``create and transmit
information''; btw, how does info differ from meaning?  what is is
created out of?).  i just don't see how your distinction can fly.
i'll take two examples, a verbal one where the ``c&t of info'' is
about nil, and a nonverbal in which a lot of info is c&t'd.

i'm the kind of person who regularly panics is a party situation where
i'm supposed to mingle.  when i'm confronted w/ random strangers, no
matter how nice and interesting they probably are, i have nothing to
say to them.  but, i am strongly constrained to vocalize and,
preferably, verbalize.  so i (quite incompetently) use all the
strategies i know:  i mutter typical nonce phrases; repeat the last
statement i heard; try to find a productive standard open-ended
question; etc..  verbal behaviour, sometimes lots of it, containing
almost no information.  (arguably lots of info from other behaviour.)

i occasionally find myself in situations more pleasant than parties,
such as when i am flirting w/ someone.  i'll define flirting as a
practice by people who don't know each other well but are in the
process of defining (or redefining) their relationship.  flirting is
mostly or entirely nonverbal, yet an enormous amount of info is c&t'd.
flirting does not simply establish, eg, sexual attraction, but
communicates all sorts of complex messages such as ``i enjoy x,''
``don't do y,'' ``this is how that makes me feel.''

i don't care whether you talk in terms of actions or perceptions, i
don't think your verbal/nonverbal distinctions have very firm basis in
``reality.''

you are probably familiar with it, but i recommend the appendix in roy
harris's _the languge machine_ for a mordant discussion of language as
encoding/decoding of meaning.

cheers.

                                --penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU