If pre-semiotic behaviour is not meaningful, why does it so consistently appear to be?
Why do:
- caregivers respond as if the infant is communicating,
- observers describe early interaction as intentional,
- developmental accounts locate “proto-meaning” well before language?
This is not an incidental confusion.
It is systematic.
1. The appearance of meaning
Pre-semiotic behaviour exhibits:
- regularity,
- responsiveness,
- and coordination across participants.
An infant’s action may:
- reliably produce a caregiver response,
- occur in recognisable contexts,
- participate in structured interactional sequences.
From this, it is natural to conclude:
the behaviour has meaning.
2. The projection of construal
But this conclusion depends on a move that is rarely acknowledged.
The observer:
- treats the behaviour as if it were a construal,
- interprets it within a semiotic framework,
- and attributes to the system a form of organisation it does not possess.
This is:
projection.
3. The caregiver’s role
This projection is not accidental.
It is constitutive of early interaction.
The caregiver:
- responds to the infant as if actions were meaningful,
- treats behaviour as communicative,
- organises interaction on that basis.
This produces:
- stable patterns of exchange,
- predictable sequences,
- and increasing coordination.
But crucially:
the semiotic organisation resides with the caregiver, not the infant.
4. Coordination under interpretation
The system that emerges is therefore hybrid.
- The infant contributes:
- organised, value-driven behaviour.
- The caregiver contributes:
- semiotic interpretation.
Together, they produce:
- interaction that appears meaningful,
- sequences that resemble communication,
- patterns that stabilise over time.
But:
appearance is not organisation.
5. Why the illusion is convincing
The illusion persists because:
- the system behaves coherently,
- outcomes are reliable,
- interaction is sustained.
From within the interaction, there is no need to distinguish:
- value-based coordination,
- from semiotic construal.
The system functions.
And so:
it is taken to mean.
6. The “as if” substitution
We can now state the mechanism precisely.
Pre-semiotic behaviour is:
- treated as if it were construal.
This allows:
- substitution to appear where none exists,
- roles to be inferred where none are organised,
- meaning to be attributed where none is instantiated.
But this is:
interpretive substitution, not functional substitution.
The system itself has not changed.
7. The absence of internal reorganisation
Despite:
- repeated interaction,
- increasing coordination,
- and stabilised patterns,
the infant’s organisation remains:
within value.
Nothing in this process:
- introduces role–reference binding,
- enables elements to function as something else,
- or establishes construal internally.
8. Why reinforcement is not enough
It might be suggested that:
- repeated interpreted interactions could gradually produce meaning.
But this would require:
- correlation to become construal,
- response patterns to become roles,
- coordination to become reference.
As already established:
none of these transformations follow.
Repetition stabilises behaviour.
It does not reorganise its function.
9. The critical asymmetry
The key asymmetry is this:
- The caregiver operates within a semiotic system.
- The infant does not.
Interaction therefore:
- embeds non-semiotic behaviour within a semiotic framework,
- without thereby transforming that behaviour into meaning.
The system is:
- coordinated across this asymmetry,
- but not unified by it.
10. The boundary remains
We must therefore hold the boundary again.
No matter how:
- richly interpreted,
- socially embedded,
- or interactionally stable the behaviour becomes,
it remains:
non-semiotic for the infant.
Until:
the organisation of the infant’s own system changes.
11. The real function of the illusion
This illusion is not useless.
On the contrary:
it creates the conditions under which the cut can occur.
By:
- stabilising patterns,
- structuring interaction,
- and embedding behaviour within semiotic frameworks,
it prepares the system.
But it does not:
- complete the transformation.
12. The problem clarified
We are now in a position to state the developmental problem with precision.
Given:
- a system organised by value,
- embedded within a semiotically interpreted interaction,
what must occur such that:
the system itself becomes organised as construal?
13. What comes next
The next step is decisive.
We must identify:
the minimal condition under which an element of behaviour becomes a construal—
not:
- in the eyes of the observer,
- not in the response of the caregiver,
but:
within the organisation of the system itself.
Only then will the developmental cut be located.
And only then will the illusion no longer be required.
No comments:
Post a Comment