integrating tagging: tagging as integration

Download Integrating tagging: tagging as integration

Post on 23-Jan-2016

45 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Integrating tagging: tagging as integration. Mark R. Lindner Visiting Serials Cataloger. Outline. Quick overview of Integrationism Community as macrosocial Towards integration Tagging as integration. Integrationism. theory of linguistics and communication - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • Integrating tagging: tagging as integration Mark R. LindnerVisiting Serials Cataloger

  • OutlineQuick overview of IntegrationismCommunity as macrosocialTowards integrationTagging as integration

  • Integrationismtheory of linguistics and communication

    opposed to segregational accounts

    Roy Harris, Professor Emeritus, Oxford

  • Timeis the key factor in human communication

    Our senses are integrated across, through and in time.

  • Constraints on human communication

    Biomechanical

    Macrosocial

    Circumstantial

  • The Sign A sign is integrational in the sense that it typically involves the contextualized application of biomechanical skills within a certain macrosocial framework, thereby contributing to the integration of activities which would otherwise remain unintegrated.

    Harris, R. (1995) Signs of writing, pp. 22-23

  • Community is the macrosocial

    Proficiency

    Practice

    Conformity

  • Towards integrationTennis (2006)Sen, et. al. (2006)Kipp (2007)Campbell (2007)Kipp (2008)

  • Tagging as integration

    Individual tagging

    Community tagging

  • SourcesCampbell, D. G. (2007). The long tail of forgetting: Libraries, the Web 2.0, and the phenomenology of memory. In C. Arsenault & K. Dalkir (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science (p. 12). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2007/campbell_2007.pdf.Harris, R. (1995). Signs of Writing. London: Routledge.Harris, R. (1996a). Signs, Language, and Communication: Integrational and Segregational Approaches. London: Routledge.Harris, R. (2005). Integrationism. Roy Harris Online. http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrationism.html Viewed 26 Oct 2008.

  • SourcesIAISLC, What is Integrationism? The International Association for the Integrational Study of Language and Communication (IAISLC) http://www.integrationists.com/integrationism.html Viewed 26 Oct 2008.Kipp, M. E. I. (2007). Tagging practices on research oriented social bookmarking sites. In C. Arsenault & K. Dalkir (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science (p. 13). Mcgill University, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2007/kipp_2007.pdf.Kipp, M. E. I. (2008b). @toread and Cool : Subjective, Affective and Associative Factors in Tagging. In Proceedings Canadian Association for Information Science/L'Association canadienne des sciences de l'information (CAIS/ACSI) (p. 7). Vancouver, British Columbia: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00013788/.

  • SourcesSen, S., Lam, S. K., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., et al. (2006). tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 181-190). Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://portal.acm.org.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/citation.cfm?id=1180875.1180904&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=5764831&CFTOKEN=12441359.Tennis, J. T. (2006). Comparative Functional Analysis of Boundary Infrastructures, Library Classification, and Social Tagging. In H. Moukdad (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science (p. 10). York University, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2006/tennis_2006.pdf.

  • Thank you!Mark R. LindnerVisiting Serials Cataloger and Visiting Assistant Professor of Library AdministrationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)

    Certificate of Advanced Study candidate, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, UIUC

    mlindner@illinois.edu217-244-1889

    Integrating tagging: tagging as integration

    [I ended up adlibbing this more than I thought, but here is what I had written: ]

    Good morning,

    I am working to finish my Certificate of Advanced Study degree at the University of Illinois. My paper for that degree is a critique of the use of the concepts of language and communication within LIS, whether explicitly stated or implicit; particularly in vocabularies of all kinds.

    In looking at tagging research I can think of no case in which the researchers view of language and/or communication has been made explicit. The implicit views all seem to follow the standard linguistic account which is a segregational account [Ill define that term in a moment.].

    My intent today is to suggest a possible alternative, Integrationism.

    Outline

    Quick overview of Integrationism

    Community as macrosocial

    Towards integration

    Tagging as integrationFounded by Roy Harris, past chair of Modern Languages and then Linguistics at Oxford

    30 years, 2 generations of students

    Integrationism is a theory of linguistics and communication, and provides a counter to segregational accounts.

    Segregationism i.e. any approach which assumes that systems of communication are independent of their potential users or of the contexts in which they can operate(http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrationism.html)

    Recognition of [the] fundamental integrational function provides a basis for comparing and analysing all communication systems, both linguistic and non-linguistic. Such an analysis stands in marked contrast to traditional semiology, where the reigning assumption is that there must already exist established systems of signs (e.g. languages), without which communication would be doomed to failure. Thus integrationism () denies the existence of context-free signs. Signs, including linguistic signs, are products of the communicational process, not its prerequisites. (http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrationism.html)

    Time takes priority because it is common to all sensory modalities and is the primary axis along which, for human beings, the various senses are integrated. SOW 38

    in every act of human communication there is implicit an integration of past, present and possible future activities. Without this temporal structuring, communication would be an entirely different process. SOW 38

    [End]---

    From an integrationist perspective, the primary function of the sign is to integrate an individual's past, present and (anticipated) future experience. That is an essential prerequisite for making sense of any situation in which we are involved. Without it, there can be no question of communication. (http://www.integrationists.com/integrationism.html)

    There are no timeless signs. SLC 97

    Its basic temporal function is to integrate our present experience (T1) both with our past experience (T-1) and with anticipated future experience (T+1). (http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrationism.html)

    The communicational infrastructure that must be in place before any of us, as individuals, can engage in any communication process whatsoever consists of three parameters:

    Biomechanical, macrosocial and circumstantial.

    Biomechanical factors relate to the physiological and psychological capacities of the human organism.

    Macrosocial factors relate to the cultural practices and institutions established in particular communities.

    Circumstantial factors relate to the context of communication and the actual activities involved. SOW 4

    The integration that is typically required in human communication depends on the possibility of coordinating sequences of activities involving factors of all three kinds. SLC 28

    Failures of communication result from a breakdown in one or more of these factors.[Read the above]

    From an integrationist perspective, the primary function of the sign is to integrate an individual's past, present and (anticipated) future experience. That is an essential prerequisite for making sense of any situation in which we are involved. Without it, there can be no question of communication. The Macrosocial can be described as containing proficiencies, practices and conformities.

    Macrosocial proficiencies are practices that are widespread and for which there is general awareness of them in the community (speaking a certain language, using certain tools, following certain occupations, etc.) SLC 29

    Particular individuals may or may not possess them and some will possess them to a higher degree than others. SLC 29

    Macrosocial practice: those for which there is no general awareness, e.g., a rise in the consumption of certain products. Sound change, as traditionally studied in historical linguistics is a typically macrosocial phenomenon of this type. Only certain aspects of it ever enter into ordinary individuals experience of language, even though their own speech behaviour is instrumental in bringing such changes about. SLC 20-30

    Macrosocial conformity: In these cases, it does not make sense to speak of macrosocial proficiency, but only macrosocial conformity (with the provisio that this is not understood in the sense of conscious alignment). SLC 30

    Someone who goes to the cinema the same number of times as the average for the community is not conforming to a macrosocial practice (nor demonstrating a macrosocial proficiency) in the same sense as as the person who habitually plays a game of chess in accordance with the rules is conforming to a macrosocial practice (and thereby also demonstrating a certain level of macrosocial proficiency). SLC 30

    Community is thus constituted by the macrosocial

    [End]

    Speech Community as an idealized notion refers to a group of people who share: 1) a language in common;2) common ways of using language;3) common reactions