| Leon James | Department of Psychology | University of Hawaii | 1975 |
|---|
Suppose we wished to formalize a psychotherapeutic register along lines similar to geometry. How would we proceed, and would its yield be more than an entertaining exercise? Consider the following attempt modeled after a college geometry text for teachers-in-training (Ringerberg, 1967, Chapter 7ff.):
In MODERN ETHNOSEMNTICS, CULTURE is the global reference to the field of study, equivalent to the term SPACE in geometry (Euclidean). CULTURE is a conceptual space. In ethnosemantics, CULTURE is a set of reciprocally ratifiable recognitions ("the new three R's"), every episode is a sequence of exchanges involving reciprocally ratifiable recognitions, every group is a sub-set of reciprocally ratifiable recognitions, every setting is a set of exchanges. We make no attempt here to define CULTURE, GROUP, RECIPROCALLY RATIFIABLE RECOGNITIONS, EXCHANGES, EPISODES, and SETTINGS. We officially declare them (and their derivatives) as undefined terms. We identify those properties of these terms which we wish to accept officially without proof. We express these properties in statements called postulates. These properties, and their derivatives, are the properties we use in proving theorems. Theorems are empirical claims about how things actually are in culture, viz. laws of social interaction.
Definition:
Culture is the set of all reciprocally ratifiable recognitions called moves.
Definition:
Reciprocal}y ratifiable recognitions (RRR) is the set of all meaningful transactions or interactions that can take place in cultural settings.
Postulate 1.
A meaningful transaction contains at least two reciprocally ratifiable recognitions, called the initiating move and the justification move, respectively.
Postulate 2.
Every episode consists of a sequence of transactions and contains at least two moves.
Postulate 3.
If (a) and (b) are two distinct moves, such that (b) follows (a) in an alternating sequence from one participant to another, then there is a particular functional relationship implied to the effect that (b) is a reply to (a) or a remedy to it.
Space = setting culture
Point = move
Line = transaction Plane = episode/relationship
Postulates
1. Culture is the set of all moves.
2. Cultural event contains at least two distinct moves.
3. Every transaction is a set of moves and contains at least two distinct moves.
4. If M and N are two distinct moves, they can be linked to form one and only one transactional pair.
5. Two moves form a transactional pair if and only if they are reconstituted as the elements of a transaction, namely as move and reply move, respectively.
6. Alternating sequences of moves and transactions form an episode if they have been marked ritually as a time-bound set (e.g. beginning, early, later, ending)
7. Episodes form relationship if they are cumulated as a joint record.
8. No transaction contains all moves possible in a culture.
9. Every episode is a set of moves and contains at least two pairs, one ritual which is obligatory and marks the beginning and ending, the other informational, which is obligatory as either "null" or "positive" (silence vs. mentioning something; not-displaying vs. displaying)
10. If AB represents the joint cumulative record of episodes between A and B, there exists a relationship between them.
11. No episode contains all moves or transactions.
12. No relationship contains all possible transactions.
13. If two moves form a transactional pair, then all sub-moves within each also belongs to the same transaction.
Theorem I
All relationships require an exchange of moves.
Proof: (i) Relationship (implies) joint record (PlO)
(ii) joint record (implies) a history of episodes (self-evident) i.e., at least one episode.
(iii) episode = set of moves (P9)
Relationship requires at least one exchange of moves.
2. A basic premise of ES is that discourse is evoked by ethnosemantic coordinates (see below). Hence the functional analysis of actual discourse performances by participants reveals the underlying ethnosemantic structure of the group.
3. ES coordinates are discourse mechanisms that function dialectically to evoke standardized relationships between conceptual units (words, symbols, ideas, morphemes, semantic features, and etc., viz. whatever can be labeled by a word or dictionary entry).
4. ES coordinates obey the principles of mechanical generation. A model of discourse that is mechanically generative is consistent with the contemporary scientific perspective on the Universe that sees everything there is, all activity and process, including "the thought process" and the "creations of the mind," as a unified system of interconnected entities, none of which is "free" or "outside" its deterministic/causative principles of governance (Order, Rule, Nature, God). Thus, ES is essentially the eschatological scientific discipline, the very foundations of knowledge. More simply, ES is the investigation of the nature of understanding.
5. ES coordinates are mathematical or formal objects that behave according to the "laws of geometry". Thus, the simplest geometric object commonly known is the point. The point represents the simplest ES coordinate: the anchor concept. The class of anchor concepts is a finite list. The dictionary is an alphabetized arrangement of the standard anchor concepts. The discourse of participants displays their repertoire of anchor concepts, but no known methods exist today for an exhaustive cataloguing of participants' overall repertoire.
6. The next simplest ES coordinate is that symbolized in Geometry as a line connecting two points. The commonly known discourse dialectic of Opposition falls in this category:
GOOD* Opposition Line *BAD
Others include synonymy, part-whole relation, word-associate, etc., which are known in the literature. Classification schemes exist, and more can be invented, that exhibit many types of relationship between words. These approaches suffer from a lethal internal weakness: no adequate rationale has yet been proposed for a classification scheme that would be sufficiently comprehensive, by reference to the very large number of anchor points (words). Roget's Thesaurus is the only notable exception. However, Roget's classification, though admirable (and should be considered an ES work), is subjective and personal, even if clarifying. ES solves this basic problem by specifying a notation system for the mechanical generation of the classification.
Thus, a geometric line, represents the first level of relationship between anchor points. Instead, now, of attempting to develop a typology of such relationships the ES notation system generates the next highest level of relationship, whatever it may be by reference to some arbitrary or specialized typology.
To Chapter 3: Dialectics of Ethnosemantics (Part 7):