Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

This volume presents the reader with a stimulating rich tapestry of essays exploring the nature of action and intentionality, and discussing their role in human development. As the contributions make clear, action is an integrative concept that forms the bridge between our psychological, biological, and sociocultural worlds. Action is also integrative in the sense of entailing motivational, emotional, and cognitive systems, and this integration too is well represented in the chapters. Action is defined, and distinguished from behavior, according to its intentional quality. Thus, a constantly recurring theme in the volume involves the dialectic of action-intentionality, and specifically the questions of how and when these concepts are to be distinguished.

The Process of Meaning Construction: Dissecting the Flow of Semiotic Activity

The Process of Meaning Construction: Dissecting the Flow of Semiotic Activity

The process of meaning construction: Dissecting the flow of semiotic activity
Ingrid E.Josephs
JaanValsiner
Seth E.Surgan

The process of construction and reconstruction of meanings is at the core of any analysis of the self and its development. The human self is a semiotic construct, created through acting in the sphere of meanings. In this chapter, we narrow down the general topic of the present volume: From a micro-genetic perspective, we analyze the process of construction and reconstruction of meaning in depth.

The construction of meaning—meaning making—is certainly not a new domain of interest invented by the 1990s narrative turn in psychology (Bruner, 1990). In the first decade of the century, the largely forgotten so-called Würzburg school in Germany, constituted by Oswald Külpe and Karl Bühler, among others, tried to analyze (experimentally and introspectively) the process of construction and reconstruction of complex meanings (e.g., Bühler, 1908/1951). Carl Gustav Jung's (1910) work on association and Heinz Werner's (e.g., 1954) comparative approach to the construction and transformation of meaning also proceed in a similar direction.

The Process of Sign Construction: Meaning Making versus Meanacting

A person creates signification by way of a sign in a here-and-now-to-future context. The sign, as constructed here and now, has two functions. First, it represents something in the here-and-now context—a function that is well-known through the analyses of signs in semiotics. However, the sign has also a second function that goes hand in hand with the first: It orients the sign constructor (user) toward the immediately potential future. The sign prepares the person for new encounters with the world that might happen, but that are not to be taken for granted.

Construction of signs is thus in part the action of preadaptation. It is a process that proceeds as an inseparable part of the “stream of consciousness” (James, 1890). This processual nature of sign constructing is not well captured by the usual reference to signs as meanings as if these were fixed, objectlike tools that are just utilized as givens in psychological functioning. Hence we refer to this process as meanacting (“acting toward creating meaning”). We offer this purposefully artificial technical term in order to overcome the essential, product notion of meaning that is entailed in the more common concept of meaning making. The latter term implies that meanings are products or fixed outcomes, whereas meanacting focuses on the process of acting-to-mean something on the basis of something else. This meanacting orientation entails directionality—a created sign reflects what is in conjunction with the person's expectations of what might (or ought to) become.

However, our coverage in this chapter is limited to elucidation of the basic processes of meanacting. We attempt to expand upon a “dialogical approach” to meanacting. We demonstrate how our theoretical scheme of meanacting works on the simplest possible sign material (word meaning construction) in the intrapersonal realm; subsequently, we provide empirical data about similar (yet more complex) phenomena of persons' meaning construction about their own selves in interpersonal contexts. Our perspective allows for a reinterpretation of some old empirical data from the Würzburg school of psychology of thinking. However, we use these old data for our present theoretical purposes.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading