<html><head><title></title></head>
<body>
Hi<br><br>I repeat Saskia's expression of appreciation to Tamar and Wendy for their theorizing (and their great set of<br>references to recent work). Saskia's example of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">mobile</span> as a locus (place) to look and listen for codes (and <br>codings, encodings, re-codings, etc) really advances and concretizes Tamar's scheme, as does Lydia's brilliant<br><span>finding of a highly temporized type of site, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">moments</span> in which old codes and new codings meet, somewhat reminiscent</span><br><span>of Goffman's strong focus on "moments." All of these responses--Tamar's, Wendy's, Saskia's, and Lydia's give</span><br><span>us a new vocabulary of inquiry. And thanks, David for creating a time and a space, and moment, David.</span><br><br><span>I also think Saskia is right in saying that Tamar's approach is
inherent to EC and SCT. Re the latter, I mention that<br><span>the versions of it from 2007 on make explicit what was only hinted at in earlier versions: "The word 'speech' in</span><br><span>'speech codes' is a shorthand term, a figure of speech, standing here for all the possible means of communicative</span><br><span>conduct that can be encountered in a given time and place." Note the words "all" and "place." Both Hymes and Donal Carbaugh</span><br><span>give us examples of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">trees</span>, for example, figuring in a local communicative economy, and of course we are seeing a </span><br><span>radical shift in where people are looking for codes. Now in the post-Katriel move now our theoretical efforts need systematic<br>use and elaborations </span><span>of words and concepts for time (moments, timings, "breakthroughs" [Hymes].</span><br><br><span>SCT
is sadly under-theorized, and if I were to try to develop it, I'd use Tamar's "temporalities," "materialities," and <br><span>"modalities" as the major part of a new elaboration of the discovery structure--the formulation of where to look<br><span>and listen for speech codes--that </span>the theory proposes. That scheme is</span><br><span>most explicitly announced in the proposition that reads "the words, rules, and premises of a speech code are </span><br><span>inextricably woven into communicative conduct."</span><br><br><span>What I would also like to see in a version of EC (and SCT, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">if</span> one wanted to keep it--I do!)</span> for the present moment</span></span><br><span>and especially for the communicative discipline ca 2016 (and beyond) is a re-assertion and development of another</span><br><span>"-alities," specifically
"consequentialities," expressed in three (also sadly under-developed) propositions of SCT,</span><br><span>the discursive force proposition but also the proposition on significance and the one on "psychology" (personhood),<br><span>"sociology" (society/group), and "rhetoric" (strategic action).</span><br><br><span>A new inventional/discovery scheme that sytematically appropriates temporalities, materialities, and modalities,<br><span>and an empirical pursuit of the consequentialities mission of SCT could be the basis for a much invigorated theoretical</span><br><span>move.</span><br><br><span>Exciting times. Too fast for me. But fun to watch sitting on the bench. Thanks to all!</span><br><span> </span> </span> </span><span> </span><br>--Gerry<br><span> </span><br>On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Saskia Witteborn wrote:<br><br>> <br>> Thank you, Tamar and Wendy, for the exciting
contributions, and Lydia for kick-starting the conversation. And a big "thank you" to David for initiating our digital encounter. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> I am particularly struck by the concept of spatiality. Tamar argues that spatiality is an inherent part of an EC and a speech codes approach, based on Philipsen's (1997)<br>> conceptualization of speech codes as historically situated and socially constructed. But she also argues that spatiality has been favored at the cost of temporality. Wendy addresses<br>> spatiality with the turn to process, another important move. In the following, I try to incorporate both concepts into my remarks on place, mobility, code, and new technologies.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Due to my focus on migration studies, one question I have been contemplating is related to Wendy’s point about process and Lydia’s comment
on mobility and speech codes. My question<br>> is how speech codes and communicative practices become mobile. What happens when communicative practices and codes move physically and digitally? How is all of that related to a<br>> sense of the "local" and place and how is place reproduced elsewhere through communicative practice and codes?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> These questions relate directly to Tamar's point of turning to new technologies and Wendy’s point on process. Turning to encoding and process and the materiality of our highly<br>> mediatized world means theorizing social conduct in relation to space and time. Mobile interfaces change social relations and with it the idea of space and time (see de Souza e Silva<br>> & Frith 2012). When I am standing in the subway in Hong Kong, people are absorbed in their virtual spaces, are here and there, and certainly
somewhere. When I am in a mountain<br>> village in China, taking out my mobile phone, clicking on the Skype symbol, this moment becomes an interactional move, where the phone is not only tool but a sign of spatial<br>> connectivity across time zones, a conversation starter, a point of spatial and social convergence, and an interactional scene. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> These observations are helpful in asking conceptual questions. One of such questions is about how codes developing in the intersections between sociality and new technologies change<br>> our understanding of spatial relations, place, and “culture”. New technologies can “dis”place situated communicative codes (e.g., on platforms like Instagram, Youtube, Weibo,<br>> Facebook, etc.) and they can create new ones. “Codes” related to the digital are not only growing out of historical interpersonal/intergroup
interactions but are also codes linked to<br>> neoliberal values being globalized. How do we account for the “culture” of the market, which encodes for us to be spatially connected in certain ways? And where is the “cultural”<br>> here? How do “market” codes merge with codes from culturally situated groups, moral, and political codes (e.g., "self-expression" which connects young people worldwide on platforms<br>> like Instagram, Facebook, WeChat, and Weibo)? What is the nature of place in these scenarios? And how do the codes develop and change over time?<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> --<br>> Saskia Witteborn<br>> Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication<br>> Program Director MA in Global Communication<br>> The Chinese University of Hong Kong<br>> Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong<br>> Phone: +852-3943-7668<br>> Fax: +852-2603-5007<br>>
<br>> <br>> <br>>
</body></html>