(2.) An ethnosemantic probe ( Es-Probe) is an analytic procedure for the derivation of a conceptual taxonomy in a particular topic domain. The procedure is mechanical and yields solutions that are recognizable as standard and practical. For this reason, ES-Probes tend to be clarifying and liberating. These beneficial attributes of ES-Probes make them directly usable as forms of instruction, explication, understanding, psychotherapy, counseling, guidance, as well as self-elucidation. The best evidence for these claims lies in their direct validation by the user. An Es-Probe is a tool of investigation in situations where clarification and understanding are of direct concern.
(3) The conceptual taxonomy derived as the outcome of the ES-Probe is an ethnosemantic outline (Es-Outline). Es-Outlines are formal objects in ethnosemantics and function as derivation paths for the generation of topic focus, topicalization, discourse. ES-Outlines are mathematical systems describable in the conceptual register of geometry and algebra. A formal characterization of ES-Probes relates to the rationale of the ethnosemantic notation system and will be described following some practical illustrations.
(4). The following six operational procedures fully specify the derivation of an ES-Probe:
Step A.Select a particular configuration of labeled topical entities. These constitute the Anchor Concepts and define the topic domain of the ES-Probe.
Step B.Derive the Conceptualizations by connecting the anchor concepts two at a time and specifying a resolution (see Method of Triangular Resolution). The number of conceptualizations is an exact mathematical function of the connectivity of the configuration of anchor points.
Step C.Derive the ethnosemantic coordinate markers (ES-Coordinates) for each conceptualization.
Step D.Derive the 8 ethnosemantic directions of each coordinate system (ES-Directions).
Step E.Derive all dyadic interactions between pairs of conceptualizations.
Step F.Derive all multiple relations between combinations of ES-Directions for all dyadic interactions.
This completes the conceptual taxonomy of the particular ES-Probe.
( 5). We will now present specific illustrations for these six operations.
Step A., the selection of the topic domain for an ES-Probe is usually made by reference to some relevant external consideration. In principle, since topic domain is formally designated as the configuration of anchor points, any selection (whether thought of as "natural", or "random", or "arbitrary" or "subjective"), any configuration whatsoever will thus define topic domain, particularly (i.e., in terms of the particular set one "happens to start with" and the structure derived therefrom).
The simplest arrangement of anchor points is that of two labeled entities connected by a line:
Golf ¥------------------------¥Truth
The Watergate Incident ¥------------------------¥ Impeachment
Julius Caesar (Shakespeare) ¥------------------------¥ John Smith (who lives at XXX A Boulevard Middletown
The next arrangement possible in 2-D is that of the triangular arrangement of three anchor points:
Two-dimensional arrangements of increasing connectivity can be specified as departing point for the probe. Note, however, that the number of labeled entries to be derived increases at a geometric rate , and is given by the expression:
where N is the number of labeled points in the arrangement. Thus, for a triangle, the connectivity is 3 [i.e., 2+1]. For a quadrangle it is 6 [i.e., 3+2+1]. For a star arrangement of 10 points, connectivity is 45 [i.e., 9+ 8 + 7...+ 1].
The connectivity of the topic domain (as defined by the number of labeled anchor points in an arrangement) is a direct index of the magnitude of the ES-Probe. Since we are treating the probe as an exhaustive expression of conceptual interconnectivity in an ethnosemantic topical domain, each intersecting operation generates a geometric accumulation.
Consider: a topic domain specified by 4 anchor points yields
15 dyadic interactions (Step E). The hexagon configuration, with six
points, yields 15 conceptualizations and 105 dyadic interactions. An
arrangement of 16 anchor points yields 120 conceptualizations and
43,336 dyadic interactions.
It should be noted that the labeling operation in ES-Outlines employs the standardized procedures of ordinary practical labeling as used in the everyday practices of participants in some particular membership group. Lexicographic taxonomies (such as Roget's Thesaurus) reconstruct "topic domains" by labeling intersections in terms keyed to standard dictionary entries. These are examples of specialized or artificial creations of topic domains, the kind that has a social membership relevance keyed to formal education (the curriculum, the sciences, the disciplines, the areas of knowledge). ES-Probes of Standard Topic Domains are useful for instructional purposes where, because of the unintended haphazard or loosely organized presentation of the materials, clarification of positional interconnections of new terminology is desirable. In such cases, the number of departing anchor points will usually not exceed the cubic arrangement of 8 anchor points (which yields a fully specified topic domain of 20,120 Standard Terms --- surely enough for any existing contemporary scholarly discipline).
ES-Probes that are clarifying of relationships that exist in a situation or event, and thus increase understanding of it, do not restrict the labeling of intersections in terms of pre-established "keyed" Standard Terms, and use the ordinary competence of participant membership for labeling in everyday ordinary practical dealings Thus, ethnosemantic "labeling" labels topics, or topic domains, these being natural products of standardized interactions (dealings, transactions, conversations, discourse).
Since topic domains. are naturally occurring cultural entities, their connectivity, magnitude and identity are empirical parameters whose specification requires empirical investigation. ES-Probes are, therefore, formal mathematical procedures for the empirical investigation oft naturally occurring topic domains in the interactions of participants in a membership group. We have not been able to find a rationale for assessing the "upper limit" of topic domains in terms of their size, organizational complexity, or "value". No doubt this will become a central issue in ethnosemantics as the empirical investigation of naturally occurring topic domains accumulates a sufficiently informative body of evidence as to the natural characteristics.
( 6.) Topic Domains are the formal ethnosemantic objects that underlie the derivation of Assertions, and further, Arguments. Since, Assertions. and Arguments. are formal components of event, episode, transaction, discourse (see Notes on the Dialectics. of Ethnosemantics.), it can be anticipated that topic domains. characterize the essential features. of all substantive and thematic reifications of social life. A specification of ES-Outlines that are recognized by a particular membership configuration as "standard" (viz., dealt with in standardized manner as revealed through the empirical observation of members' practices) sufficiently characterize the particular identity of a "cultural group". Therefore, ES-Outlines are informative about special situations where the interacting participants identify their belongingness to different particular membership groups (c . f. "cross-cultural"," ethnic minority," "standard dialect" -- these being labels for topical domains recognized by the current membership of psychologists, educators, linguists, language teachers). In such situations, ES-Probes generated by informants who are also membership participants may serve as a fully-specified contrastive description of two different particular ethnic groups, as represented by the performance of the participants involved in the cross-ethnic interaction.
( 7.) The above discussion examined some of the issues involved in the selection of the departing configuration for the ES-Probe (Step A) and consequences thereof. Step B involves the derivation of con-conceptualizations using the "Method of Triangular Resolution of Contention Points" in the following manner:
With this arrangement, there are 8 conceptualizations to be derived:
A. (1-2): Adequacy
B. (1-3): Value Orientation
C. (1-4): Discussion
D. (2-3): Validation
E. (2-4): Policy
F. (3-4): Consensus
The labeling of a new point in a connected configuration of anchor points to identify a conceptualization is an operation achieved by resolving a contention point created by connecting two anchor concepts. The immediate, evocative resolution of a contention point is a naturally occurring discourse event that is operationally dependent on the evocative discourse mechanisms of register (see Notes on Discourse Mechanisms). Register mechanisms allow the derivation of Assertions and Arguments (e.g. in discourse) as various transformationally specified functions of topic domain configuration.
Therefore, particular resolutions selected for contention points (as in the examples given here) are marked as individual productions of participants. They are thus indicative of personal-individual variations in conceptual organization and functioning. Thus, the contrastive analysis of particular resolutions derived by particular participants allows the characterization of individual understanding. Similarly, the combinatorial analysis of sets of such resolutions by different participants allows the characterization of standard understanding through the specification of in-variants.
To Chapter 3: Dialectics of Ethnosemantics (Part 5):