Skip to main content

Proposal for a Phatic Glossary

Image
By Semiophrenic
A List of Keywords and List of Names would be two wonderful magical devices that could help us navigate into this area. (Joe)
This is a good idea. I've been considering doing something like it for my own blog for a while now because it's getting more and more difficult to navigate through all the clatter and clutter of phatic this and phatic that. My thought was to create a quasi-chronological listing of all sources that say something significant about phatics. I'm sure I'll get around to that when I've exhausted the materials I'm currently working on, but for our current paper I think a list of main terms could actually be useful.

Here's a preliminary list from the top of my head:
  • phatic communion (Malinowski)
  • phatic function (Jakobson)
  • phatic communication (La Barre)
  • phatic image (Virilio)
  • phatic text (Schandorf)
  • phatic negotiation (Coupland, Coupland & Robinson)
  • phatic interpretation (Žegarac & Clark)
  • phatic technology (Vetere et al., Wang et al.)
  • phatic labor (Elyachar)
  • phatic community construction (Blanco)
  • phatic culture (Miller)
This is by no means exhaustive list, but these come to mind first. The question now is: how deep should the list of keywords go, because almost all later authors invent a whose host of phatic sub-terminology, like phatic design, phatic technological habituation, etc. It can get pretty absurd, because phatic exchange and phatic talk are basically synonymous, just like various terms like phatic utterance and phatic statement.  Not to mention non-canonical terms like phatic act (Austin) and phasis (Wescott), which have been called out by a renowned scholars but whose interpretation of "phatic" almost no-one nowadays subscribes to.

Comments

  1. aridedOctober 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM

    We should make a similar round-up of the different phatic functions. Rasmus's initial proposal for a set of "multiplied" functions, after Jakobson, is summarized here: http://phatic-workshop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/phatic-x.html

    I wonder if my use of "conative" has drifted, since I've been using it to describe goal-like interactions, e.g. around a ROADMAP; but in that post it is about acquaintance and reputation. Are roadmaps and reputations linked, or has something here gone screwy? What about my proposed "introductory" and "imperfect" functions: would those fit with the Jakobson functions as special variant versions, or are they "new"?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Metacommunicative cues

By Semiophrenic
In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a
7 comments
Read more

Extra channels

By Semiophrenic
In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.
3 comments
Read more