Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

LEAVING OUT THE INTERPRETER’S WORK: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF ETHNOSEMANTICS BASED ON ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

LEAVING OUT THE INTERPRETER’S WORK: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF ETHNOSEMANTICS BASED ON... INTRODUCTION In trying to discover the nature of cultural competence, ethnosemantics (ethsem) leaves out of account the judgmental or interpretive work of a society's members, and that neglect is fatal to its program. This critical thesis is the nub of the present article. It derives from Garflnkel and, more implicitly, from the later Wittgenstein. The article is organized as follows.1 Ethnosemantics (Sturtevant, 1964; Colby, 1966; Tyler, 1969e; Conklin, 1972) is characterized by specifying its goals in terms ^of its theory of culture. Its borrowings from semiotics are made explicit in order to provide a point of departure for the critique. The latter has two parts -- an internal critique drawing on work within the field, followed by a critique from ethnomethodology (ethmeth; Garfinkel, 1967c). Two tacks are taken throughout. One centers on data gathering, the other on the semantic arrangements that form the results. Their respective internal problems -- the problem of abstracting from pragmatics, and the problem of context -- reduce, under the gaze of ethmeth, to instances of indexicality. Ethsem's ability to produce orderly results is re-vie wed by ethmeth as a case of the accomplishment of social order. ETHNOSEMANTICS Goals and Theory of Culture The http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique de Gruyter

LEAVING OUT THE INTERPRETER’S WORK: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF ETHNOSEMANTICS BASED ON ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/leaving-out-the-interpreter-s-work-a-methodological-critique-of-0EWABhIJ7w

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Walter de Gruyter
ISSN
0037-1998
eISSN
1613-3692
DOI
10.1515/semi.1976.17.4.339
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTRODUCTION In trying to discover the nature of cultural competence, ethnosemantics (ethsem) leaves out of account the judgmental or interpretive work of a society's members, and that neglect is fatal to its program. This critical thesis is the nub of the present article. It derives from Garflnkel and, more implicitly, from the later Wittgenstein. The article is organized as follows.1 Ethnosemantics (Sturtevant, 1964; Colby, 1966; Tyler, 1969e; Conklin, 1972) is characterized by specifying its goals in terms ^of its theory of culture. Its borrowings from semiotics are made explicit in order to provide a point of departure for the critique. The latter has two parts -- an internal critique drawing on work within the field, followed by a critique from ethnomethodology (ethmeth; Garfinkel, 1967c). Two tacks are taken throughout. One centers on data gathering, the other on the semantic arrangements that form the results. Their respective internal problems -- the problem of abstracting from pragmatics, and the problem of context -- reduce, under the gaze of ethmeth, to instances of indexicality. Ethsem's ability to produce orderly results is re-vie wed by ethmeth as a case of the accomplishment of social order. ETHNOSEMANTICS Goals and Theory of Culture The

Journal

Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotiquede Gruyter

Published: Jan 1, 1976

There are no references for this article.