A social semiotic approach to content-based
(language) learning
著者
David Kennedy
雑誌名
dialogos
号
13
ページ
97-126
発行年
2013-03
URL
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1060/00005048/
Creative Commons : 表示 - 非営利 - 改変禁止 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.jaAsocialsemioticapproachtocomem-based
(
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
)
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
97 DavidKennedy AbStract Thepurposeofthispaperistooutlineamoreecological,socialsemiotic approachtolearningandsemiosis(meaning-making)withinacontent-based curriculum.Iwilldothisbychallengingprevailingassumptionsaboutthe relationshipbetweenlanguageandmeaning,aswellasbetweenindividual learnersandtheirsocialenvironments.Iwillsuggestthatareductive (componential)perspectiveontheseelementsprovidesafarlessdescriptive accountoflearningthanarelational(ecological)one,whichisbasedonthe biologicalandsocialrootsofsemiosis.Iwillalsoarguethatasocialsemiotic approachtocontent-basedlearning,onethatembracesthefilllrangeofsemiosic resources,affbrdsaricherandmoresociallyinclusivecontextfbrlearningand meaning-making.Thisisparticularlyapplicablewhenconsideringthewaysin whichmeaningandidentityareshapedinanevermoreglobalized,pluralized, multicultural,andmulti-ethnicworld.Anecologicalperspectivethusbefits amultidisciplinarylens,takinginawidespectrumofsemiotics,linguistics, psychology,socialtheoryleducation,phenomenologyjandthenaturalsciences. Keywords:content-basedlearning,deepecology,affbrdance,semiotics,C､S. Peirce,semiosis,indexicality,socialsemiotics,M.A.K.Hallidaylsituatedsocial semiosis,multimodality98 DavidKemedy 1Asocialturn:languageandmeaning,individualandworld SpokenandwrittenlanguagearecommOnlyregardedasthepredominant vehiclesfbrmeaning-making.AsarticulatedinaChomskyanframework, languageisaspecies-universalcomputationalstructurethatenableshumans tomakesenseoftheohjectiveworldinwhichtheyfindthemselves(Atkinson, 2011).Thelanguageteachingprofessionisnoexceptiontothiswayofthinking; ithasbeenspellbound(quiteunderstandably,asallofusare)bywhatHusserl calls"theseductionoflanguage'',aconditioninwhich.Gtheapparentlyfixed 6validitiesofassociation'makethingsappearnatural,permanentanduniversal byvirtueoftheirhavingbeennamed"(Cope&Kalantzis,2000,p.206). Languageteaching,inthemain,setsouttoequiplearnerswiththetools(spoken andwrittenlanguage)necessarytosurviveinasemioticallyfixedworld. Itisnotsurprisingthatlanguageteachingprofessionalshaveputthisnotion oflanguageandmeaningundermuchlessscrutinythanitdeserves.Agoodhalf centuryofSLAresearch,pedagogicalinnovation,andmaterialdevelopment haslargelybeenbuiltonaSaussureansemiotictraditionthatcharacterizes individualsasG.users,moreorlesscompetently,ofanexisting,stable,static systemofelementsandrule3'(Kress,2000,p.154).Thisconceptualizationhas beenbolsteredbyeducatorSq"dstudentggeneralpredilectionfbrlanguage educationorientedtowardassimilatingstudentsintoapre-packagedtarget community-itslanguage,itsnorms,itsvalues.Content-basedlearning too,despiteitspurportedlanguage-in-contextfbcus,isitselffbundedonan assimilativerationale,linguisticallyandcontextually.Content-basedcurriculums aregenerallycontouredtoapproximatetheimagined,yetclearlydelineated, semioticcontextsinwhichstudentsarepresumedtoeventuallyenroll:often Westernacademiaor.Ginternationalbusiness''. Nonetheless,theambivalencethatmanyfbreignlanguagelearnersfeel
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 99 towardtheiractualroleandparticipationinanevermoreglobalized,pluralized, multilingual,multicultural,andmultimodallypresentedworldarealready underminingthecommonperceptionofsemiosisassimplyG6verbalbehavior intheaggregate"(Lemke,2002,p.85)-i.e.anassumptionthattruthresides inrhelanguageofthestatusquo.Thisuncertaintylorbreakingdownofgrand narratives,therebythrowsintorelieftheongoingfbrmationofmeaninginα〃 contexts・Itisbecomingclearerthatthefiltureoflanguageteachingwillrevolve aroundthedebatebetweenthesetworadicallydifferentconceptualizationsof meaning-making:oneasanappropriationofanexistingstablesystem,andthe otherasadialogicandendlessremakingandtransfbrmationofmeaning. Oneearlysignofthisshiftinlanguageeducationbeganinthel990s,which
g
r
a
d
u
a
l
l
y
w
i
t
n
e
s
s
e
d
w
h
a
t
B
l
o
c
k
(
2
0
0
3
)
t
e
r
m
s
a
"
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
u
r
n
"
i
n
S
L
A
'
.
F
r
a
m
e
d
inanotherway,the90ssawtheadventofapoststructuralistapproachto languagelearningthatties6Cindividualattitudesandbeliefsystemstolarger societalprocesses"(Pavlenko,2002,p.286).Thiswasnotablyexpressedin FirthandWagner'sseminall997articledenouncingthestrongtendencyin SLAtotreatlanguagelearningasageneralizablecognitiveprocessrather thanasituatedsocialactivity,areductivestancethathasrelegatedlanguage learnerstothestatusof"subjects"insteadofuniqueparticipantsinawider realmofconstructingmeaning・Blocksummarizesthetraditionalcognitivist modeloflanguagelearningasprimarilytechnicalandtransactional,Gconewith essentialisedinterlocutors,withessentialisedidentities,whospeakessentialized language"(p､4).Thesocialturnthusmarkedanewinterestin"thelearner asawholeperson,notagrammarproductionunit''(VanLier,2004,p.223; IBlocksystematicallycritiquesallthreecomponentsofthisabbreviation(seco城〃"g"αgE， and"9"jsi"o")asfUndamentallyinadequateindescribingthewiderangeofcommunicative possibilitiesfbrindividualsinsocialsettings.100 DavidKemedy seealsoUshioda,2009),aswellasencouragingamoreecologicalviewofthe individual'sowncontributionstolearning.
Content-basedlanguagelearning(morecommonlyreferredtoascontent-b
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
o
r
C
B
I
2
)
w
a
s
o
n
e
i
n
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
o
c
i
a
l
t
u
r
n
.
I
n
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
,
itconstitutedareactionagainstthedecontextualizationoflanguagelearning, arejectionofthe(still)indefatigablecognitiviststraininSLAandmainstream languagepedagogythathassegregatedlanguagelearningfromwhateverelse maybehappeninginthelearner'sworld.SnowandBrinton's(1997)volume,fbr example,fbcusedtherationalefbrCBIon"integratedlanguageandcontent"(p. xi),anattempttoprovideamoreauthenticandtangiblecontextualplatfbrmonw
h
i
c
h
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.
3
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
-
b
a
s
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
h
a
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
m
u
c
h
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
fifomawiderangeofresearchinSLA,learningstrategies,cognitivepsychology, motivation,andprogramoutcomes,amongothers(seeBrinton,Snowl&Wesche, 2003;Grabe&Stoller,1997). Eventhoughtheintentionincontent-basedlearninghasbeentonarrowthe gapbetweenmeaning-making(inthiscasespokenandwrittenﾉα"g"age)and the"real"worldofsemioticaffbrdances(inthiscaseco"花"tascontext),Iwould arguethattheselectionofcontentistooinfrequentlyselectedwithsufficient regardfbrhowthematerialaffbrdsrelevantengagementwithaworldthelearner hasameaningfillinvestmentin・TraditionalCBIhasde-emphasizedthepersonal andofienunpredictableprocessesof"semioticmediation"(Wertsch,1991)in understandingandshapingtheworld,oftentreatingcontentasacommodity 2Becausethefbcusofthispaperisontheﾉeα耐erandhisorhercontributionstothelearning process,Iwillcarefilllydistinguishbetweencontent-basedinstructionandcontent-based learning. 31tisinterestingtonotethatSnowandBrintonherepresentGGlanguage''andGccontent''as distinctentities,implyinganeedtosystematicallyfilsethem,asiftheywerenotalready mutuallyfbrmative.A
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
m
i
o
t
i
c
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
-
b
a
s
e
d
(
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
)
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
101w
h
o
s
e
v
a
l
u
e
h
a
s
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
b
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
q
u
o
,
a
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
t
o
b
e
p
a
i
d
f
b
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d
r
e
w
a
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
s
c
e
n
d
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
m
a
s
t
e
r
y
.
CBIinthisveinistypicallyrationalizedasawayofusingcontent ("comprehensibleinput'')toequipthelearnerwithpractical,contextualized (generallycollegiate)skillsfbr"theeventualusesthelearnerwillmakeofthe targetlanguage"(seefbrexampleBrinton,Snowj&Wesche,2003).Eskey(1997) makesastrongercasethanmostCBIproponentsfbrlearnersGGnotmerelyacting outroles,buttryingtousetheirnewlanguagetofUlfillgenuinecommunicative purposes''viacontenttheyaretrulyinterestedin(p.136).Nonetheless,his proposalfallsshortofsituatingthecreationofmeaninginthec"〃e"jmoment andspace;thefbcusoflearningisstillonGGhowtoacculturatestudentsto therelevantdiscoursecommunities''(p.140),implyingthatcontentisstilla commoditys6outthere''tobepurchasedafteraccruingenoughoftheaccepted currency.Contentbecomesastand-infbrcontext.Thecontent-basedclassroom thusprovideslearning伽vi"oratherthan加vivo. Asmentionedattheoutset,oneofthepurposesofthispaperistodealwith theissueofsemiosisincontent-basedlearningbyproposingasocialsemiotic approachthatrecognizesadialogicinterplaybetweeninnerandouter,between learnerandsocialworlds・Suchanapproachwouldshiftthefbcusaway fromregardinglearningprimarilyasunidirectionalcognitive6Cinfbrmation processing"(strictlyoutside-in),toconsideringitastheco-constructionof meaningthatoccursw肋加culturesandbywayofthefilllspectrumoftheir sharedsymbolicsystems(outside-inandinside-out,asitwere).Inthefieldofp
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
l
f
b
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
B
r
u
n
e
r
(
1
9
9
0
)
4
a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
b
a
l
a
n
c
i
n
g
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
andclinicalCccognitivepsychology''withamorewholisticandhuman6Gfblk 4Brunerhimselfunderwentsomethingofasocialturnatthisstage,havingachieved distinctionasoneofthepioneersofthe6ccognitiverevolution''intheearlyl960s.102 DavidKennedy psychology''inwhichparticipants'phenomenologicalawarenessoftheprocesses
s
h
a
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
i
s
a
s
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
t
e
a
n
d
r
e
v
e
a
l
i
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
p
e
e
r
i
n
g
intotheirheads. Theblurringofthedemarcationseparatingtheindividualmindandthe socialworld,however,isasmuchabaneoftraditionalcognitivistschools ofSLAasisapostpositivistviewoflanguageandmeaning.Althoughthe socialsciences(includinglanguagepedagogy)areoftenloathtoabandontheirB
a
l
k
a
n
i
z
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
m
,
5
t
h
e
e
n
i
g
m
a
s
t
h
a
t
f
i
l
l
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
o
u
r
r
e
a
d
y
-madecategorizationsmustnotbeignoredifwearetofbrmanyconstructive understandingoflearningandmeaning-making.Whatneedsgreaterrecognition isthatmeaningisthefluxinthespacesbetweenmind,language,andworld. 2Deepecologyandsemiosis:relations,affOrdance,andmeaning potential Sebeok(2001)makestheremarkable,yeteminentlyreasonable,claimthat"the emergenceoflifeonearth,some3.5billionsofyearsago,wastantamountto theadventofsemiosis''(p.136).Asbiologicalcreaturesthatarebutonepartof anaturalecosystem,itwouldbepresumptuousandarroganttodenythatour humanmeaning-makingactivityderivesfromanythingbutourphylogenetic (evolutionary)andontogenetic(developmental)relationswiththephysical universe.SemiosisisinaveryrealsenseaneveIzendingcreativeiteration,oras MaturanaandVarela(1998)putit,"bringingfbrthaworld"(p､27).Meaning-51ncontrasttothecurrentcompartmentalizedstateofthesciences,thegreatAmerican semioticianC.S.Peirceconfessed,｡Githasneverbeeninmypowertostudyanything,-mathematics,ethics,metaphysics,gravitation,thermodynamics,optics,chemistry, comparativeanatomy,astronomy,psychology,phonetics,economics,thehistoryofscience, whist,menandwomen,wine,metrology,exceptasastudyofsemiotic"(quotedinHardwick, 1977,85-86).Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 103 making(orintheirterm,"knowledge")"isassociatedwiththedeepestrootsof ourcognitivebeing…Andbecausetheserootsgototheverybiologicalbase... thisbringingfbrthofaworldmanifestsitselfinα〃ouractionsandallourbeing'' (ibid.,p､27).Fromanecosocialperspective,thebiologyofsemiosisistherefbre
inseparable廿omitssociology(seeLemke,2002,p.69).6VanLier(2004)
situatesthissocialprocessofmeaning-makingatthe66interconnectionsbetween thecontextsthatwecreatebyourownactivityandthecontextsthatarecreated byothers,inwhichwefindourselves,eitherbydesignorbyaccident''(p.40). Thesearetherefbremediationsofmeaningoccurringalongmultipletimescales, someshorteI=termandsomelongersterm(Lemke,2002) Thisistheheartofa"deepecology"viewofsemiotics.VanLier(2004) proposesthisasreimagining"thedevelopmentoftheselfandidentityjnotjust asgrowingintoanexistingsocial-cultural-historicalrealityjbutconstructing suchareality"(p.19).Herefiltesa･Gbucket"theoryofcontextinwhichapre-establishedsocialenvironmentisviewedasmerely.6containing''anindividual's actions.Indeed,meaninganditsmakingcα""otbeprocessedwithinabrain thatismerelygive"dataaboutitssurroundings.Anecologicalapproachstands instarkcontrasttosuchmechanisticconceptionsofcognition,language, andcommunication-thoseexemplifiedbyChomskyinlinguistics,andby Long,Doughty,Selinker,andGassinSLA(seeAtkinson,2011).Reductionist descriptionsofmindandmeaning-or,inabroadsense,descriptionsof howmindandworldinterrelate-assumethatthemindprocessesspecific sensoryinputfromtheoutsideworldbydecodingitandthentestingitagainst 6Bateson(2002)describesthisas"twogreatstochasticsystemsthatarepartlyininteraction andpartlyisolatedfromeachother.Onesystemiswithintheindividualandiscalled /eqr"j"g,theotherisimmanentinheredityandinpopulationsandiscalledevo〃〃o"・ Oneisamatterofthesinglelifetime;theotherisamatterofmultiplegenerationsofmany individual3(p.141).104 DavidKemedy thegeneralizedrulesthathavebecomestructurallyhardwiredbyevolution. Themind,inthisview,learnstounderstandbysortinginfbrmationinto phylogeneticallyfbrmedneuronalstructureswhichevolveovertime. However,suchaccountsfailtoconvincinglyaddresshowitisthatthemind o"roge"e"cα〃makessenseoutofthechaoticmassofinputthatrunsthrough it・Thereisnoexplanationfbrhowmeaningisputtogetherinrealtime.Thibault (2004)explainsthatbecausehigherorderconsciousnessis"constitutedby andembeddedincontextsofmeaning-making…,[it]cannotbeexplainedin termsofuniversalorabstractregularitieswhichtranscendparticularcontexts. Consciousnesshasaphe"o"@e"o/ogy…"(p.20).Inthesamevein,Deacon(2012) arguespersuasivelythatcomputationalmodelscannotadequatelydescribethe systemicemergenceofmeaning,andthattheminditselfmustbeseentoplaya moreactiveroleinsemiosis: Acomputationexhibitsmerelymotivepowerbutamindalsoexhibits fbrmativepower.Ortoputthisinemergentdynamicalterms:coﾉ"p"”"o〃 o"な〃α"唯芯ex"伽sicα/帆"@posedco"s"α加応/>℃ms"Z)s""eros"bs""e, wh"ecog加加〃応e"@iosiSﾉge"er"es加〃加sicco"s"α伽rSr加rルavea c叩ac"ropmpa印req"dseligorgrWze.(p.498,italicsinoriginal) Thatis,semiosiswouldbeimpossiblewerethereadissociationofintrinsic processing(whathappensinthemind)fiFomextrinsicinfluences(Whathappens intheworld).Theminddoesnotsimply"interpret''theworld. Themindandthesocialworldmusttherefbreco-createmeaning.As MaturanaandVarela(1998)contend,｡Gthemindisnotsomethingthatiswithin mybrain・Consciousnessandmindbelongtosocialcoupling・Thatisthelocus oftheirdynamicg'(p.234).Thisdefinestheessenceofautopoiesis("self creation"),anorganism'sstructuralcouplingwithitsmedium,embeddedina dynamicofchanges:indeed,asIhavesuggestedearlier,semiosiscanbeseento
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning lO5 beembodiedinallsystems,whethertheybephysical,biological,psychological, orsocial(Sebeok,2001).Merrell's(1997)broadeningoftheconceptofsemiosis illustratesthisconceptbeautifillly: Inthetermsof[JohnArchibald]Wheeler's@meaningphysics,'itisnot simplyamatterofourviolinistp"〃加gtheviolin/o"se,theviolinalsop"応 theviolinistro"se,andthemusicp""bothofthemro"seastheyp"ritto "se,whiletheymaketheirwayalongthese"osicstreaminharmonywith eachotherassignsamongsigns.(p.334) Inotherwords,theplayerisnotmerelygrowingintoapre-establishednetwork ofmeaning;rather,therelationshipbetweenplayer,instrument,andmusic constituteanunsettledsemiosis.Iwouldsuggestthatthelanguageteaching professioncouldextendthissamemetaphortolanguagelearner,language,and meanlng. Thesedynamicsofrelation,action,anduseareultimatelydependenton nature'softenstochastic(i.e.randomlydetermined)provisionofq"bγ血"c“・ Gibson(1979)describestheseassimply@6what[theenvironment]Qガセ芯the animal…eitherfbrgoodorill"(p.127).Inanecosocialviewofsemiotics, theycanbecharacterizedasthecontextswhichsparktheprocessofsemiosis. Affbrdancestherefbreimplicatearelationbetweentheorganismandthe stimulus.AsVanLier(2004)explains,"toperceivetheworldistoco-perceive oneselfThismeansthatwhenweperceivesomething,weperceiveitasitrelates tous.So,theohject,these"o"coh/ecr,[C.S.]Peircewouldsay,isnot@asit is,'but@asitistome'"(p.91).Inthenaturalandsocialworld,then,signs(and byextension,language)grow廿omanorganism'sperception,interpretation, andactioninresponsetorelevantaffbrdancesGGinacontinuouscycleofmutual reinfbrcement"(p.92)(seeFigurel).
106 DavidKemedy a 伽 ‘ 錘 澪 Figurel:Affbrdance(adaptedfromVanLieli2004,p､92) Inshort,thebiologicalbasisofsemiosisisrelational.Meaning-makingis notthemechanicalprocessofa66mindinavat''decipheringanencrypted correspondencewitholJectsinthe"worldoutthere".Instead,semiosisconsists ofintimaterelationshipsofrelevancebetweenanorganismandthephysical, social,andsymbolicworldsurroundingit.Signsare,inefYect,6cmediated affbrdances"(ibid.,p.63). ThelinguistM.A,K.Hallidayrevolutionizedthefieldoflanguageacquisition byapplyingtheseprinciplesofbiologicalaffbrdancetothesemioticgeneration oflanguagethroughuseinsocialsettings.Incontrast,Chomskyanlinguistics (anditsmainstreamSLAcounterpart)hassteadfastlyminimizedthesemiotic valueoflanguageuseorvariation.Hallidayanlinguisticsthustakesadecidedly moreecosocialapproach.Itrajectsthecognitivelinguistictendencytotreat languageasmodulararchitecture(i.e.rulesandstructure),emphasizinginstead therelationsbetweentheplayers(i.e.system).Halliday(1978)explains: ...intheinterpretationoflanguage,theorganizingconceptthatweneed isnotstructurebutSyste"@...Withthenotionofsystemwecanrepresent languageasaresource,intermsofthechoicesthatareavailable,the interconnectionofthesechoices,andtheconditionsaffectingtheiraccess. (pp.262-263)
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 107 Inthissense,thenotionofaffbrdanceiscloselyrelatedtowhatHallidaycalls "eα"加gpote""αﾉ.LanguageiJasystemofchoicesthatliesbefbrethespeaker'' (VanLier,2004,p.74). WhileHallidayanSyste"@icん"c"o"αﾉ〃α加加aJ"hasmetmuchenthusiasm amonglinguistsandlanguageteachersfbritsemphasisonlanguageassocially emergent,Halliday'spreferredtermfbrhistheories,8ocjaノse〃わ〃c,has garneredmuchlessrecognitionamonglanguageprofessionals・Sincethelate 1980sHallidayandfellowmembersoftheSydneysemioticscircle("theSydney
s
c
h
o
o
l
"
)
h
a
v
e
r
a
i
s
e
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
m
i
o
t
i
c
s
t
o
a
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
i
n
i
t
s
o
w
n
r
i
g
h
t
,
a
l
b
e
i
t
s
m
a
l
l
.
7
Thisfieldisinterestedinthesocialdynamicsofsemiosisthatincludenotonly languagebutα〃thepossiblemodesofmeaning-making. Ashasbeensuggestedbefbre(andwillbedealtwithinmoredetaillateI), meaningcannotsimplybeconfinedtolanguage,norcanlanguagesimplybea tooltoexchangeagreed-uponmeanings・Sebeok(2001),fbrexample,notesthat c6languagedidnotevolvetosubservehumanity'scommunicativeexigencies.It evolved…asanexceedinglysophisticatedmodellingdevice''(p.136).Language fbrmedasasymbolicexaptationofbaserfbrmsofsemiosis,anabstractionofthe moreiconicanddeicticcommunicationofourfbrebears・MaturanaandVarela (1998)putitthisway:"Weworkoutourlivesinamutuallinguisticcoupling,not becauselanguagepermitsustorevealourselvesbutbecausewec"･eco"sr""花泓 加ﾉα"g"αgeinacontinuousbecomingthatwebringfbrthwithotherg'(pp. 234-235,italicsmine).Inotherwords,wearesignsamongcountlessothersigns, manyofwhichwehavecreated. Nowthatwehavelookedatthesocio-biologicalecologythatfbrmsthe substrateuponwhichmeaninginallitsfbrmsiscreated,Iwillnowturnto 7Fourwell-knownalumniofthisgroup-RobertHodge,GuntherKress,JayLemke,andTheo VanLeeuwen-arecitedinthispaper.108 DavidKemedy thequestionofhowmeaningismade,howitisunderstood,andhowitis transfbrmedinsigns. 3Signs,semiosis,selfiandsecondness Aswasmentionedinthefirstsectionofthispaper,languageteaching(including CBI)hasmostcommonlybeenpredicatedonthenotionthatlanguageisa cognitivestructurethatrepresentsanobjective,semioticallycompleteworldthat existsoutsideoflanguage.Languageisseenasaccesstomeaning.However, thisviewfailstodescribeamechanismbywhichsigns-including,butnot limitedto,language-arefbrmed(andnotsimplyexist),aswellastheroleof signsthemselvesinshapingandtransfbrmingtheworld・Althoughthere加岬be anobjectiveworld"outthere",itisimportanttorememberthatouroperational understandingofsuchaworldconsistsofnothingbutthesignsthatweourselves create.Merrell(1997)explains: ...whatwefindintheworld(orthefiction)isinthefinalanalysiswhatwe putthereinthefirstplace.Andwhatweputthereisalwaysanincomplete andradicallyimpoverisheddiminutionofthetotalityofwhatis6real'... Atbottomline,neithertheworldnorfictionsnorlanguagecanofferany Grandlnfalliblelndexcapableoftellinguswhetherofnotthe6world'asit isarticulatedisGactuallyreal'.(p､80) Theobjectofasignisthusalwayshidden.Indeed,ifitwerenothidden,there wouldbenoneedfbrasigntorepresentit. Ultimatelythen,semioticsisabouthowthemindcreates(orapproximateS) theworldoutofajumbledmassofsenseimpressions(Sebeok,2001).Forthis paperlhavechosenPeirceansemioticsoverotherschoolsbecauseofitscrucial emphasisonadialogic腕rerprαα〃o"ofsigns,notsimplyonselfcontained correspondencesbetweensignsandobiects.AsPeircesays4GNothingisasign
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 109 unlessitisj"re叩γαedasasign"(1931-58,2:172,italicsmine).Thisactof interpretationwithinanorganismisindispensiblefbrsemiosis,afbcuswhich generallydistinguishesPeirceansemioticsfromSaussurean(orstructural)
s
e
m
i
o
t
i
c
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
l
e
s
s
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
a
c
c
o
u
m
s
f
b
r
h
o
w
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
t
a
k
e
s
o
n
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
h
o
w
thatmeaningpropagates,orhowitevolves. AfUllaccountofPeirce's6Gdoctrineofsigns''iswellbeyondthescopeofthis paper.Itisnecessary,however,tooutlinetherelational(andtherefbresocial) aspectofPeirceansignstructure.Atitsmostbasic,Peirce'stheorydescribesthe "sign"(whatwemightcallasemioticevent)asanirreduciblytriadicrelationshipo
f
o
b
/
e
c
r
(
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
)
,
s
j
g
"
8
(
o
r
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
m
e
n
)
,
a
n
d
W
e
l
d
p
r
e
"
"
r
.
A
s
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
below(seeFigure2),thehubrepresentsasinglemomentofaffbrdance withinlivedexperiencearoundwhichmeaningisfbrmed;asigninvoIvesthe relationshipbetweenwhatisrepresented(theobject),howitisrepresented(the representamen),and,crucially,howitisinterpreted(theinterpretant).Semiosis istherefbrenotapassiveevent,butiscontingent叩onanactiverecOg""o"of contiguitybetweenobjectandrepresentamen. 8Peirce'suseofthewordsjg"intwodifferentwayshascreatedsomeconfilsion.Inthisuse,it mightalsobecalledasjg"ve"cﾉe,thatwhichrepresentssomethingelse.110 DavidKennedy s堰n Orr啄刀でSe"如卿e〃
o
I
Z
j
e
c
t
in囎甲鱒tant
Figure2:Peirce'sstructureofthesign(adaptedfrom､VanLiel;2004,p､68) Animportantramificationoftheinterpretationalaspectofasignisthatits meaningisnevercompleteorfixed;itisalwaysbeingtranslatedintoor"er signs.Eco(1976)referstothisprocessaJGunlimitedsemiosir(pp.68-69),the meaning-makingthatoccursadinfinitumassignsre-interpreteachother-new signsemerginginanexpandinggalaxyoflivedexperience・Likewise,VanLier (2004)describeshow$Gthecouplingofsignsemphasizesthedialogicalnatureof semiosis,sinceeverysuccessiveiteration…ofsignifyingwillpickupsignifying energyfigomtheother(where.other'canbeco-presentinterlocutor,institutional habitus,culturalartifact,physicalobject,andamillionother@other3)"(p.70). Fromthisperspective,meaning-makingisasorganicaprocessaslifeitself; witheachcouplingofsignsconstitutingareproductiveactthatcan｡6amplify intelligenceandaffbrdopportunityfbracascadeofsemanticinnovation'' (Sebeok,2001,p.35). Figure3showsasimpleexampleofthedialogicalcouplingoftwosignsonthe indexicallevel.AnalreadyexistingSignAandSignBshareacommonfbcuson ObjectCNonetheless,パsinterpretationofObjectCmayverywelldifferfrom B's,producingtwodivergentrepresentamens(orsigns).However,SignBwouldAsocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning lll besemioticallytransfbrmedwereweto66rotate''SignAclockwisesothatA's representamen(sign)nowbecomesanoWectfbrSignB. 極 副
鯛 騰 聯 熊 蹴 狐 惑 甑
典 蕊 Figure3:Dialogicallyco叩ledsignsontheindexicalplane(adaptedfrom VanLien2004,p､69) AmorethoroughdiscussionofthecomplexityofPeirceansemioticscanbe fbundinMerrell(1997),butwhatlpresentabovewillhopefilllysuggesttothe readerthePeirceanmodel'sutilityfbrdescribingtheendlessnowofsemiosis. Becauseitisalwaysbeingre-interpretedinrelationtoothersigns,asignis therefbrealwaysasocialsign-inBakhtin'swords,@chalfsomeoneelse's"(1981, pp.345-346).Itoccursnotjustinsidethemind,butinthephysicalandsocial world(VanLier,2004).Thisraisesimportantquestionsaboutthesemiotic relationshipbetweentheselfandtheoutsideworld(which,aslwilldealwith laterinthispaper,hasimportantimplicationsfbrcontent-based[language] learningdesign). AgoodstartingpointinansweringtheseqUestionsliesinPeirce'sprofbund andinnovativel868claimthat6Gthehumanandtheexternalsignareidemical''112 DavidKemedy (Sebeok,2001,p.36).Thismeansthattheindividualisalsoasignoratext, notatallstaticinidentity,norpassiveinselffbrmation.Merrell(1997)notes acentralthemeinPeirce'sworkinwhichallthoughtisadialogicinterplayof signs,that: ...evenatitsmostprivateandsilentitisnonethelessadialoguebetweenthe selfofonemoment,whichis,properlyspeaking,asign,andtheoncoming selfofthenextmoment,asigncomingintoexistence…[therefbre,]all triadsareintimatelylinkedandinextricablyweddedtotheselfand,indeed, tothewholeofse"osis".(p.56) VanLier(2004)likewiseinsiststhatneitherthemindnortheselfarecompletely containedinthebody(thoughtheyaree"26odied).Rather,theyarecomplex 66websofmeaning-making,socialactivitylrelations,connections,contingencies, habitsandcolUectures,thatareanchoredbothinsideandoutsideourbody,and thatprQjectoutwardsaswellasinwardr(p.119).MaturanaandVarela(1998) arguethattheselfissemioticallyfbrmedasa"socialsingularity"(p.231). Theseviewsreinfbrceapointlmadeearlierinthispaper,thatthesocial sciences(includingSLAandlanguagepedagogy)wouldbenefitfromre- evaluatingthestillcommonlyhelddualismsofmind-body,individual-environment,andlanguage-content・Indeed,aclearimplicationfbrteachersand studentsisthatthemakingofmeaning(theactoflearning)andthefbrmation ofidemityareamalgamatedinthesamediscursiveprocessofGGbringingfbrthof aworld".Lemke(2002)suggeststhatFEWhateverweofferupintheclassroom becomesanopportunitytopursuelongeFtermagendasofbuildingrepertories andresources''(p.77).Intermsofcontem-basedlanguagelearning,thiswould entailpresentingcontentnotasapre-packagedsetofmeanings,butasan opportunityfbrthelearnertoplayamoreactiveroleinmeaning-making・The eventualgoalofcontent-basedlearning,then,mustbetoconnectcontentwith
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 113 theselftovaluetheindividual'sconstructionofidentityandhisorherfilll participationintheco-creationofmeaning.Tbthisend,thekeyliesinwhat Peircereferstoasthe加ctxicaﾉlevelofsemiosis. Peircethoughtthat"representations''generatefilrtherinterpretantsinoneof threeways,throughico"s,"dices,anday加加な(seeFigure4).Brieflystated,at theleveloficonicity("firstnesT),semiosisoccursviasensationandlikeness.A cavepaintingoraphotographaresimpleexamples・Atthelevelofindexicality ("secondness"),meaningisgeneratedthrough"associationbycontiguity" (Sebeok,2001,p.87),a"pointing"orrelationalco-orientationofelements. Thiscanbeexemplifiedbycausalorspatialassociations,suchasteethmarks inanapple,bulletholesinatarget,orthefamiliarsmellofone'sownhomethat says,GG1'mhome.''Finally,atthelevelofsymbolicity("thirdnesl'),semiosis happensbyassigningqualitiesorconventions.Forexample,thewordscchomme'' andG6man''shareacommonreferenceonasymboliclevel,buttheyshareno significantlikenessesorcontiguity.Thesethreelevelsofsemiosisarenot hierarchical;rather,meaningscanflowinanydirection.
DavidKemedy ll4
syM
議瀞準 鋸堆 ︾︾ １ １ ３ 寒“ 麺︾ 湖 1 … & 麺 L ， 背 篭 2識 暇鱒l鋤s… 鐸︾ .,率･沙 ､｡-〈,禽 攻力:父 識識 燕 。 燕 。 321 騨惣識郵風 曾迩3麺 321 1霜『識郵凧 曾迩3麺蕊溌y
蕊 翠・一一 ＝ 麺︾卿 雲︾︾ 雲 螂 磯 戟耀噂 i r " " W Figure4:Peirce'sdecalogueofsigns(adaptedfromMerrell,viaVanLieL 2004,p.64) Unfbrtunately,theimportanceofindexicalityisoftenoverlookedinfbreign languageinstruction.LanguagepedagogyinaSaussureansemiotictradition oftenassumesapredictableanddirectascentfifomtheiconiclevelofsense perceptionandunboundedpotentiality(aworld"outthere")tothesymboliclevel oflanguage,theboundedpossibilitiesofabstraction(acomputer｡6inhere"). However,theindexicalleveliswhatbridgessuchinnerandouter,connecting theselfandlanguagetotheworldthroughccthebeingofpresentexperience'' (Peirce,citedinSebeok,2001,p.85).Itistheessenceofco"rex/・Pointing,or 〃なjs,isdecisiveinmeaning-makingbecause,asPeircesays,cCNoassertionhas anymeaningunlessthereissomedesignationtoshowwhethertheuniverseof realityorwhatuniverseoffictionisreferredto"(ibid.,p.85).OurthoughtsandAsocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 115 languagearetherefbregl･o""庇dinourphysicalcontiguitywiththeuniverse. Wittgenstein(2005)remarks,"Itisn'tthecolourredthattakestheplaceofthe word"red",butthegesturethatpointstoaredobiect"(p.40e). Theindexical(this,that,here,there,you,me)levelofasigntherefbre emphasizesthere/α"o"α/,andtherefbre8ocjaノaspectsofsemiosis.Itisthusa wayofgainingaccessnotonlytothephysicalworldofspace,time,andobjects (thephysicalenvironment),butalsotothesocialworldofpeople,events,and societies.Forcontent-basedlanguagelearning,thisraisestheissueoflearner3 indexicalpower:theiraccess,reference,andcontributiontoabodyofknowledge somewhere"outthere"thatseemsfixedandunchallengeable.VanLier(2004) stressestheimportanceofindexicalityinlanguagelearning: [Deixis]allowsfbrthecreationanduseofrelevantaffbrdancesandsigns, butmoreimportantlyitistheworkbenchordesktoponwhichthelearner maynegotiatethefiFeeflowamongsignsandtheconstructionofoptions fbrlife.Withoutthedeictickeythelearningpersonremainsanoutsider,but withthatkeyaninvitationalcultureoflearningispossible,andthelearner maybecomeasig"αro"tothatculture.(p.68) Ilikewisebelievethattheissueofaccessandengagementisessentialin establishingarichsemioticfbundationfbrcontent-basedlearningcurriculums,a themethatwillbeelaboratedinthefbllowingsection. 4Content-basedlearning:access,engagement,identity,andsocial semiotics Afterourexpeditionthroughthebiologicalandsocialrootsofsemiosis,Iwill endthispaperbyproposingthatthisecosocialviewofsemioticsfbrmthecenter ofarevisedapproachtocontent-basedlearning,particularlyinfbreignlanguage learningsettings.Forifwearetotakecontem-basedlearningseriously>wemust
ll6 DavidKemedy thenalsoprioritizetherelationshipbetweencontentandlearner.Thisinvolves issuesofbonafideaccesstocontent,relevantengagementwithcoment,andthe GGmeaningpotential''providedbysuchcontent,whetherthatbelinguisticornon -linguistic. Theprevioussectioncharacterizeddeixis-theorientationofindividualsin relationtotheirsurroundings-asfimdamentaltoparticipationinmeaning-making.Inlanguageorcross-culturaleducation,thisimpliesstrengthening thedeicticrelationsbetweenthelearnerandthecodesthatconstitutecultural hameworks,thosethattherebyalsounderliethepﾉ･od"c加刀ofmeaning.These codesinvolvenotonlyverbalandwrittenlanguage,butthewholespectrum ofactionsthatconstitutedailysemiosiclife,thoseinvolvingbody,perception, behavior,genre,aesthetics,emotion,ideology,massmedia,commodity,value, andsoon.Genuinecontent-basedlearning,therefbre,mustconsistofmorethan acobblingtogetherofpre-selectedcontentwithasetoflinguisticconventions thatgiveitafbrmofexpression;itmustalsotakeintoaccountthesubstrateof livedexperienceonwhichsuchcontentandlanguagearise. Unfbrtunately,filllaccesstothistypeofmeaning-makinginthefbreign languageclassroomhasbeenimpededbytheprofession'sunhealthypreference fbrcertaindehumanizingcharacterizationsofﾉeαγ""s,expressedinmetaphors suchasthe"learnerascontainer"orthe:｡learnerasmachine"(seeEllis,2001). Indesigningcurriculum,educatorshavegenerallyviewedlearnersas6ctheoretical abstractiong'ratherthanas"realperson3'(Ushioda,2009,p.220).The administrativerealitiesofschooling,unfbrtunatelylmakethisconceptionrather difficulttoavoid. Thestricturesofadministrationcanalsoleadtocontent-basedlearning curriculumstreatingcontentandcontextasiftheywerevirtuallysynonymous. Buttheyclearlyarenot.Contentdoesnotnecessarilyhaveaclearrelevance
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 117 tothelearner'slivedexperience,nordoesmerelypresentingsuchcontentina communicativemannermakeitrelevant.Amoreconstructiveunderstanding ofcontextdemandsthateducatorsrecognizelearnersasactorsinarealworld andnotsimplysuqectsinwhichlinguisticchangecanbemanipulated(Lantolf &Pavlenko,2001;Ushioda,2009).Asingle-mindeddrivetowardlanguage G･fluency''-withco"re"ractingasasurrogatefbrco"rexr-oftenleadsto studentscomplaining66thatonlytrivialitiesarediscussedintheirclasses,andthat theyfeeltheyaretreatedasiftheyhadnothingofvaluetosayjbrrhe"IseﾉVeS" (VanLier,2004,p.67).Content,therefbre,canonlybetrulyengagedby exploitingcontextsthatarerelevanttolearners'ownlivedexperiencesand semiosicpotential. Aswasdiscussedearlier,semiosisisalong-termprqjectofidentityfbrmation andsocialengagement.However,thepotentialfbrmeaning-makinginsociety isnotaltogetherequitable.Becausetheemergenceofmeaning,andtherefbre identity,isasocialact,itisalsoasiteofstruggle(Norton,2000),apolitical equation.Bourdieu(1991)speaksof"symboliccapital'',theresourcesthatcan beinvestedinsocialdiscourseandthatgiveindividualsaccesstoparticipation inthe"imaginedcommunities''thatsurroundthem(Norton,2001).Bourdieu arguesthatGGlegitimatecompetencecanfimctionaslinguisticcapital''and that66speakerslackingthelegitimatecompetenceare庇允αoexcludedfifom thesocialdomainsinwhichthiscompetenceisrequired,orarecondemned tosilence"(p.55).Ineducationalcontexts,metaphorsthatassumelanguage learnerstobef〃rcie"rusersofthetargetlanguageserveonlytoreinfbrcethe 66gatekeeping''policiesandpracticesthatrestrainlearner3filllparticipationin discourse(Pavlenko,2002,289).AsBourdieuputsit,@Gtheeducationsystem tends…toproducetheneedfbritsownservicesanditsownproducts,i､e.the labourandinstrumentsofcorrection"(pp.60-61).Content-basedinstruction,
118 DavidKennedy
t
o
o
,
e
a
s
i
l
y
f
a
l
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
t
r
a
p
:
t
h
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
h
a
s
,
f
b
r
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
p
a
r
t
,
b
e
e
n
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
e
d
t
o
a
n
a
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
-
b
a
s
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
'
s
CO"加加"o"stothecontent,ortomeaning-making,israrelyapriority.Toreiterateapointltouchedonearlier,oneofthereasonsfbrsuch
c
c
g
a
t
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
'
'
i
n
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
l
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
m
o
n
o
l
i
t
h
i
c
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
a
n
d
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
.
K
r
e
s
s
(
2
0
0
0
)
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
a
t
i
n
traditionalpedagogy,6Gmeaningisinfactidentifiedwith6meaninginlanguage''' (p.159).Ourobsessionwithsymboliclanguageshouldbecausefbrsome consternation,fbr,asMerrell(1997)pointsout,symbolsderive廿omtheirmore filndamentalpredecessors,iconsandindices・Therefbre,languageoughttobe fbrusthemostalienandabstractiveofsignfbrms,andyetournaturaltendency istodenythis. Tbacertaindegree,then,wearealwaysdeludedbecauselanguage'svery natureisdeceptive.Andyet,asMerrellsaysFGweobstinatelypersistinour attemptstoexercisesomesortofhegemonyoveroursemioticworld"(p.63). HodgeandKress(1988),explainthelimitationsofthislinguacentricapproachto pedagogy: Traditionalsemioticslikestoassumethattherelevantmeaningsare廿ozen andfixedinthetextitselftobeextractedanddecodedbytheanalystby referencetoacodingsystemthatisimpersonalandneutral,anduniversal fbrusersofthecode.Socialsemioticscannotassumethattextsproduce exactlythemeaningsandeffectsthattheirauthorshopefbr:itisprecisely thestrugglesandtheiruncertainoutcomesthatmustbestudiedatthelevel ofsocialaction,andtheireffectsintheproductionofmeaning.(p.12) Inshort,anoveremphasisontheabstractionandpredeterminationofmeaningin languageignoresthecontributionsoflearnersthemselvesinthesocialprocessof selnlos1s．Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 119 Thefieldofsocialsemioticshasattemptedtorectifytheseissuesby rediscoveringthe"""伽o血"〃ofmeaning-makinginreallife.Kress(2000) lamentsthatccthesingle,exclusiveandintensivefbcusonwrittenlanguagehas dampenedthefillldevelopmentofallkindsofhumanpotentials,throughallthe sensorialpossibilitiesofhumanbodies"(p.157).Socialsemioticsisareactionto traditionalandstructuralsemiotic5fixationonlanguageastheprimaryvehicle fbrsemiosis;itproposesinsteadanagendafbr"situatedsocialsemiosir(Jensen, 1995,p､57),arenewedrecognitionandintegrationofallresourcesfbrmeaning -making. VanLeeuwen(2005)definesthesesemioticresourcesasencompassingall 66theactionsandartefactsweusetocommunicate"(p.3).Theseincludethe
profUsionofevermoremixedandremixedimagesthatmakeupourcomplete
semioticlandscape:sound,music,screenmovement,layout,graphicdesign, gesture,speech,writing,3Dobjects,commercials,weblinks,andsoon・Cope andKalantzis(2000)similarlydescribeamoreinclusivepictureofcontextand meaning-making:64Attheheartoftheprocessesofintegrationistheinherent 6multines5ofhumanexpressionandperception,orsynaesthesia.Meanings cometoustogether:gesturewithsight,withlanguage,inaudiofbrm,inspace"(p. 211).Applyingthisapproachtocontent-basedlearningwillinvolveintegrating morethansimplylanguageandcontent(alaSnowandBrimon,1997);itwill alsoseekconsiderationofallsemioticresourcesthattheindividualbringsinto thesocialcontext,aswellasthosethatareaffbrdedthroughsocialinteractionin thelivedmoment. Forcontent-basedlearning,suchanapproachtherefbrenecessitatesan adjustmentinhowcontentischosen.MainstreamCBIisaclearinstantiationofa broadertrendinlanguageeducationthat,becauseofbotheconomicandpolitical pressure,isleaningtowardgreaterstandardizationandmeasurement.Asa120 DavidKemedy result,contentfallspreytofiagmentationanddecontextualization・Cammarata (2006)decriessuchanti-democraticmodelsofeducation,wherestudents'"own individualexperiencesarenegated,wheretheirownschemataareneutralized
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
o
f
a
n
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
"
(
p
.
2
9
)
.
9
S
o
c
i
a
l
semioticsstrivestoincludethelearnerindecisionsaboutcontentbyadding CCagency,orthedynamicsofdesigning,toearlierGtransmission'notionsof literacyteaching"(Cope&Kalantzis,2000,p.234).TheNewLondonGroup (2000),whosemembersincludelikemindedsocialsemioticiansandmultiliteracy theorists,advocatesthatschoolsandpedagogybestrong,cGnottoimpose standards"but"asnemralarbitersofdifference"(p.15).Thiswouldinvolve"an epistemologyofpluralismthatprovidesaccesswithoutpeoplehavingtoeraseor leavebehinddifferentsubjectivities"(p.18). Anemancipatoryenterprisetowardgreaterpluralismwouldsurelybenefit morethanjusttheindividuallearner.Forifwearetomoveawayfrom proprietaryattitudesaboutknowledgeandmeaning-andifwearetocommitto apedagogythatrecognizesthedialogicnatureofsemiosisinallitsmanyfbrms -thenweshouldalsoconfidentlybelievethattheoutcomesofsuchaprmect willprofitnotonlyschools,butalsocontributetothedevelopmentofamore egalitariansocietyasawhole.TheNewLondonGrouphasaptlytermedthisa "designofsocialfiltures''.HodgeandKress(1988)describethesocialvalueof heterogeneitythisway: 9Cammarata(2006)makesthecompellingobservationthatfbreignlanguageeducationhas beenparticularlyculpableintheGGfragmentation''ofknowledgeand6csubmissiontotechnical procedure''､ItshistoryhasbeenG｡anendlessdanceofshiftingmethodsandtheoretical approachesadvocatingbetterinstructionalrecipes,moreefTicienttechniques,promises ofbetterresults.''Inthisatmosphereithasbeeneasyfbrfbreignlanguageeducatorsto fbrgetthatcGeducationisprincipallyahumanadventureandthatonlyapedagogythat placesindividualsatthecenterofinstructioncanputlearnersonthepathofintellectual emancipation"(p.35).A
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
e
m
i
o
t
i
c
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
-
b
a
s
e
d
(
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
)
l
e
a
m
i
n
g
121 Theissueoftruthisboundupinextricablywithissuesofpowerand solidarityinaspecificgroup.Tifuthisbothmobilizedandputtothetest iseverysemiosicexchange.Differencethusbecomestheprimarymotor ofsemiosis-differentversionsofrealitytoberesolvedthroughsemiosis, coalitionstobecreated,antagonismstobeovercomeorprevented,or activatedanddeclared.(p.151) Therefbre,acontent-basedlearningcurriculummustensurethatthe presentationofnarratives,issues,orideologiesre廿ains廿omsuggestingany sortoffinality-whetherofdelimitation,agenda,orauthorship・Thestatus quoshouldalwaysremainundernegotiation;thereisnoreasonitshouldbe otherwiseineducationalinstitutions.Itis,therefbre,pedagogicallyandethically qUestionabletoexpectlearnerstosimplyassimilatepre-packagedcontentthat theyhavehadabsolutelynosocialroleinauthoringoraffirming,orthatthey havelittleprospectofmakingameaningfillpartoftheirpresentorfilturelives. Arelatedchallengeistoensurethatpluralityisencouragedamongthemany voicesthatinhabittheclassroomitselfTheNewLondonGroup(2000)proposes thatmultiliteracyeducationattemptc@tomakespaceavailablesothatdifferent lifeworldscanflourish:tocreatespacesfbrcommunitylifewherelocaland specificmeaningscanbemade''(p.16). Indeed,itmustberecognizedthatthenarratives,orcodes,thatcarryan individualthroughhisorhersemioticexistenceareultimatelyfbrmedﾉoca伽， withintheeverydaydiscourseofthesocialenvironment・Meaning-making inacontent-basedcurriculumshouldtherefbrepresentenvironmentsthat encouragelearnerstocollectivelystruggletowardgreaterparticipationinthe widerworldbymakingoptimaluseofalloftheirownsemioticresources加 r〃e"ome"r.AsKress(2000)putsit,@FAnadequatetheoryofsemiosiswillbe fbundedonarecognitionofthe6interestedaction'ofsociallylocated,culturally122 DavidKennedy andhistoricallyfbrmedindividuals,astheremakers,thetransfbrmers,and
t
h
e
r
e
-
s
h
a
p
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
"
(
p
.
1
5
5
)
.
I
n
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
t
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
b
e
a
m
p
l
y
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
n
d
s
e
m
i
o
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
-
m
a
k
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
harmonywiththelearner'slivedexperience. Incontent-basedlearning,finally,theprocessofenteringafilllersemiosicp
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
s
e
e
n
a
s
a
r
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
c
o
"
s
I
"
"
"
s
o
f
semioticcommoditiesto"eﾉCO"s""αorsofmeaningfbrtheirownindividual andsharedpurposes.Astrictlycanonicalapproachtocontentselection-one thataimstoassimilatelearnersintoanidealizedmonolingual,monoculturaltargetcommunity-weakensthepotentialfbrarichertransfbrmationof
meaning,identity,andsocietybForthisreason,theprimarygoalcannotmerely betheintegrationofcontentandlanguage,whichhasbeentheagendaof mainstreamCBI.AsBakhtin(1981)asserts,adiscoursethatissimplybasedon theauthoritativenessofanestablishedcanon66isnotsurroundedbyanagitated andcacophonousdialogiclife,andthecontextarounditdies,wordsdryup"(p. 344).Rather,theobjectiveofcontent-basedlearningmustbeanecosocialone, theGGbringingfbrthofaworld'':totreatcontentasinextricablydependentupon themultifariousmodesbywhichmeaningisdiscursivelyfbrmedincontext. VanLier(2004)arguesthat<Gthemostnaturalcurriculumfromanecological perspectiveisaprQject-basedone"(p.222).Content-basedlearningdesigns haveproventobeapositivesteptowardre-contextualizinglanguagelearning byextendingitintothewiderenterpriseofpersonalandsocietaldevelopment. Nonetheless,intheireagernesstoimplementstandardizedprogramsandachieve quantifiableresults,content-basededucatorshavetendedtoundervaluethe lessprogrammableaspectsoflearningandsemiosis,i､e・thoserelatedtohuman beingsfbrgingidentitiesandmeaninginverypersonalcontexts・AndyetmuchAsocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning 123 oflearningisserendipitous-itoftenhappenstouswhilewearebusymaking otherplans,orwhileothersaremakingplansfbrus. Asthispaperhasdiscussed,semiosisisbroughtaboutbyprimarilystochastic affbrdancesinourphysical,biological,andsocialworlds.Thenaturalorder, however,doesnotnegatehumanagency・Ibelievethatlearningcontextscα〃be optimizedtofacilitatebroader,moreproductive,andmoreinclusivecomextsfbr meaning-making・Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-basedlearningcanhelp intheendeavorofintegratingnotonlycontentandlanguage,butalsothevarious modesofrepresentationanddisseminationofmeaning,astheyareallultimately wovenintothesameseamless,endlessfabricofsemiosis. Rehrences Atkinson,D.(2011).Introduction:Cognitivismandsecondlanguageacquisition.In D.Atkinson(Ed.),"rer"α"veα〃roacﾙesroseco"d/α"g"αgeqc9"航"o"(pp. 1-23).London:Routledge. Bakhtin,M.M.(1981).剛ed"ogicj〃αg加α伽":Fo"ressf帆byMMBα肋"".(M. Holquist,Ed.,C.Emerson,&M.Holquist,Thans.)Austin:UniversityofTbxas Press. Bateson,G.(2002)_Mi"dα"d"α/l""e:""ecessα〃灘"".Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress. Block,D.(2003).TWesocjα〃”〃加seco"d〃"g"αgeqc9"is"jo".Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversityPress. Bourdieu,P.(1991).Z,α"g"age&"加加"cpoweﾉ".(G.Raymond,&M.Adamson, Trans.)Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Brinton,D.M.,Snow,M.A.,&Wesche,M.(2003).CO"花"r-6qsedseco"dﾉα"g"αge j"s〃"c"o"(MichiganClassicsEditioned.).AnnArbor:TheUniversityof MichiganPress. BrunerJ.(1990)."4c"Qf"2eα"加gCambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Cammarata,L.(2006).[ﾉ"咋応rα"‘加gα"d"pﾉe"2e"""gco"花"r-6"sedi"s""c"o"：
124 DavidKennedy J4"eXp/oJ""jo"qがﾌrejg〃ﾉα"g"αgere"c〃ers'"vedexperie"ce.AnnArbor,MI: ProQuest. Cope,B.,&Kalantzis,M.(2000).DesignsfbrsocialfUtures.InB.Cope,&M. Kalantzis(Eds.),M"ﾉ"ﾉ"e'"cies:L"erqG)ﾉﾉear"j"g""dr"edesjg刀呼socjaノ ルr"γes(pp､203-234).London:Routledge. Deacon,T.W.(2012).lizcol叩ﾉae"α"""efHりw加加deJwejged"o加加α"erbNewYork: Norton. Eco,U.(1976).4t"eoryqfse"'jo"cs.BIoomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress. Ellis,R.(2001).Themetaphoricalconstructionsofsecondlanguagelearners.InM. RBreen(Ed.),Le""〃CO"加加"o"sto/α"g"ageﾉe”"加gⅣどwα"ec"o"s加 r“eα'℃ﾙ(pp.65-85).Harlow:Longman. Eskey,D.E・(1997).Syllabusdesignincontent-basedinstruction.InM.A.Snow,& D.M.Brinton(Eds.),7Weco"re"6qsedcﾉassroo":"'叩ec"veso"j"regrα""g ノα"g"ageα"dco"te"'(pp.132-141).WhitePlains,NY:Longman. Firth,A.,&Wagner,J.(1997).Ondiscourse,communication,and(some)fimdamental conceptsinSLAresearch.TWeMb血r"Lα"g"αgeJb"""8I(iii),285-300. Gibson,J.J.(1979).TWeeco/Ogicα/αppro"cルrovis"αﾉpeﾉ"cep"o".Boston:Houghton Mimin. Grabe,W,&StollerlF.L・(1997).Content-basedinstruction:Researchfbundations.In M.A.Snow,&D.M.Brinton(Eds.),7Weco"re"r-6"edcﾉαssroo"z:Peﾉ叩ec"ves o"〃"J"n""g〃"g"αgeQ"dco"た"'(pp.5-21).WhitePlains,NY:Longman. Halliday,M.A.K.(1978).Lα"g"αg巴associaﾉse"zio"c.London:EdwardArnold. Hardwick,C.S.(1977).Se"o"csα"dsjg"j/ics:CorJ"espo"血"ceberwee"C〃α"esS. ""℃eα"dLαの脚aorja腕ﾉ妙.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. Hodge,R.,&Kress,G.(1988).SOcjaﾉse"1jo"cs.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress. Jensen,K.B.(1995).mesocjaﾉse"zjo"csq"“scom"""jca"o".London:Sage Publications. Kress,G・(2000).Designandtransfbrmation:Newtheoriesofmeaning.InB.Cope,& M・Kalantzis(Eds.),〃""""er"cies:L"erqCyﾉear"加gq"Cfrhedesjg"q/socjaノ ル""es(pp.153-161).London:Routledge.
Asocialsemioticapproachtocontent-based(language)learning l25 LantolfJ.P.,&Pavlenko,A.(2001).(S)econd(L)anguage(A)ctivitytheory: Understandingsecondlanguagelearnersaspeople.InM.PBreen(Ed.),Le""er co"加加加"sro/α"g"ageﾉe”""g:NewJ"ec伽"s加r“eαγch(pp.141-158). Harlow:Longman. Lemke,J.L.(2002).Languagedevelopmentandidentity:Multipletimescalesin thesocialecologyoflearning.InC.Kramsch(Ed.),Lα"g"αgeqc9"is"jo〃α” ノα"g"αgesocjaﾉ伽"o":此o/Ogicaﾉpe岬ﾌec"ves(pp.68-87).London:Continuum. Maturana,HR.,&Varela,F.J.(1998).TWe"eeQ/ﾙ"owﾉefte:TWebjo/ogicα〃oo/sQf 加加α"〃〃ers""d腕g(Reviseded.).Boston:Shambhala. Merrell,F.(1997).此"ce,szg"s,α"｡〃eα"加g.Tbronto:UniversityofTbrontoPress. Norton,B.(2000).〃ど""〃α〃〃"g"αge/"""腕g:Ge"血ﾉ9,αﾙ"”〃α"ded"cα"o"αノ c加"ge.Harlow:Longman. Norton,B.(2001).Non-participation,imaginedcommunitiesandthelanguage classroom.InM.P.Breen(Ed.),Le""erco"〃j伽"o"sroﾉα"g"ageﾉeαﾉ･"加g 此w戎γec伽"sj"F･ese"℃ﾙ(pp.159-171).Harlow:Longman. Pavlenko,A.(2002).Poststructuralistapproachestothestudyofsocialfactorsin secondlanguagelearninganduse.InMCook(Ed.),Por"α伽げﾒﾙeZ,2"se'"(pp. 277-302).Clevedon:MultilingualMatters. Peirce,C.S.(1931-58).CO"ecredw"""邸.(C.Hartshorne,P.Weiss,&A.WBurks, Eds.)Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Sebeok,T.A.(2001).Sjg"s:肋加"o伽c"o"rose"o"cs(2nded.).Tbronto:University ofTbromoPress. Snow,M.A.,&Brinton,D.M.(1997).Introduction､InM.A・Snow,&D.M・Brinton (Eds.),TWeco"re"r-6"edcﾉαssroo"1:Pempec"veso〃加regJ.zz""gﾉα"g"α解α"d co"te"'(pp.xi-xiii).WhitePlains,NY:Longman. TheNewLondonGroup.(2000).Apedagogyofmultiliteracies:Designingsocial filtures.InB.Cope,&M.Kalantzis(Eds.),M""""erzzcies:L"erqCyﾉe”"加gα"d r〃e咋聰"q/sociaノル加柁s(pp.9-37).London:Routledge. Thibault,RJ.(2004).z4ge"Cyα"dco"scio"s"ess加‘ガScoz"Qse:馳咲orherdy"α〃jcsas acoﾉ"pﾉexS)Asre"7.London:Continuum.
126 DavidKennedy
Ushioda,E.(2009).Aperson-in-contextrelationalviewofemergentmotivation,self andidentity.InZ.D6rnyei,&E.Ushioda(Eds.),Mo"vα伽",Iα"g"αgej血""〃
q"dr"eL2se"(pp.215-228).Bristol:MultilingualMatters. VanLeeuwen,T.(2005).肋"o""cj"gsocjaﾉse"o"cs.London:Routledge. VanLier,L.(2004).剛eecoﾉogyα"dse"O"cSq/ﾉα"g"αgeﾉcar"加g:4socjoc"""、ノ pe岬ﾌec"ve.Boston:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Wertsch,J.Vj(1991).ﾘﾉbices叩〃e加加‘ﾉ:J4socjoc"伽mIα〃ro"c"ro"@ed加醐αc"o"・ Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Wittgenstein,L.(2005)．T〃e〃gW7esc叩炭耐〃3.Malden,MA:Blackwell Publishing.
