If of rules. 47 And their nature in soc semiotics. Soc semi inventories different types of rules. 48 the contexts in which ey are taken up, their implictness and explicitness. Etc.
## Arbitrariness Lexicon rules - paradigmatic rules? What motivates the connections between s and s.
The motivation of signs applies to interp as it does to production. 51 We never mechanically apply rules. 50 but adPt and choose them in our understanding of context and which systems apply and are most apt. 51
Grammar rules - syntagmatic? Rules of combination
Double articulation is not unique to language. 51 Lego Smell as seen by parfumiers - as a system Others?
Important is that these system look like single articulation to the consumer, but double to the producer. 51. We have variable ways of structuring semiotic resources.
Status of the semiotic mode of a particular system influences double or dingle articulation. 52. The more status gained, the more strictly taught and controlled. The move is from system to be worked with to collection. We can see changes in systems happening.
Apply method to rules
Inventory of five features Control Justification Strictness Deviance and sanctions Change 53
And in five semiotic regimes. 53 Personal authority Impersonal authority Conformity Role models Expertise
Rules as embedded in code, as in Words algorithm for grammar. Hence we have ruled that cab be followed w o being learned or even seen. 55
Semiotic systems can be atomized, 55 as learning photoshop becomes a set of Lego videos. Modules, learning objects, that create rote learning of rules followed automatically. Competencies.
How algorithms can be made great ice because it engages rules at a specific level.
Tradition - how rules of writing tend to be taught. Conformity
Semiotic critique of Best Practices
Best practice as a way of codifying, enforcing and distributing rules by influential non-experts. 56 role models, basically. Social control. Allow choice, so requires monitoring. QA Matters, for instance. To de naturalize this, focus on exposing the deliberate control strategies. 57. Me and seeing us not just as consumers of best practices but as critics of their production.
Under role model rule, users are motivated to select but are not necessarily aware of the semiotic connotations of what they wear. 62. We can use the rules of fashion to disavow meaning. To declare a mental distance from what they are signiftpying. 62. How's that for clouding intent!
Rules are nor recognized a ruled but as models, suggestions, guidelines. They are written but not a dictates but playful. 62
The next move is to look at the mechanism by which rules are propagated and enforced. Van does this pp62ff. Looking at how role models are created.
Van takes some interest in how people make choices in fashion. This is the idea that the sign-maker is motivated and will choose what's apt. What's apt is guided by a system of rules, some of which may not be known by the maker. Rule systems can be codified and commodified so that we become consumers of rules as well as the objects they assign meaning to. So it isn't a matter of producers fitting their objects into the system. They also create the rules for the system. L l bean. Gap. Martha Stuart. Levi's.
But also Quality Matters, d2l: these corporate entities codify and regulate semiotic practices in Ed design, curriculum, teaching. They define student, teacher, assistant, supervisor positions by their positions in the system. They can enforce rules users are unaware of and certainly don't have to know. The the rules are differential: not the same for teacher as student. Teacher and student even have different views of the material and the system, to further emphasize their segregation. They allow some freedom, and they can be gamed, which is a way of becoming a producer rather than a consumer. There are sanctions for using and not using. There are rationales that are imported from different systems, as in d2l is convenient, easy to use - both of which are constructed to apply not only to the system but to the process of learning. The system changes behavior by foregrounding certain kinds of material - mainly the professor's content of grading, which is presented to the student separated from the work that produced it in a spreadsheet that seems to be objective and permanent. All this is a push to naturalize the system.
So, in response: attach grades on projects to the project content. (That engages a similar set of rules still, by aligning the grade to the object rather than the learning itself.) Make producers of students. Don't publish overall or running grades as they occur but have student request - make the grade a commodity! By removing it from one system for another - by revealing that the grade is a co-production of the student and prof.