Search

If, under the title semiotic dynamics, one decides, as I have done elsewhere, to retain the study of the processes of putting into signification, of meaning elaboration and of transformation into signs, then this presupposes, on the one hand, to be interested in what, as actors of communication, connects us and binds us to one another through our ordinary communication practices, and, on the other hand, to understand what we concretely develop in context. Here, for obvious practical reasons, I will not take up this issue of semiotic dynamics in detail. I will content myself with referring to works already published and will be interested in one of the stable dimensions of its background—a dimension whose relevance is essential for those involved in communication, and therefore for the development of the processes of transformation of the empirical forms that they activate as well as for the meaning of these forms. This dimension is historicity—more precisely, its retention. By its continuous presence in what is transformed and exchanged (in what we transform and exchange) during the processes of elaboration of meaning, the retention of this historicity is functional: it marks our situated interactions and helps determine the constraints applied to the tools of our communication—including the “tool” that we ourselves are, as we communicate/express by our simple “appearing”. After having shown that certain “affine” conceptualizations resulting from the research carried out in our social and anthropological space quite naturally assume its presence, I will conclude — without great originality—that this dimension is general.