(1995). Selection of organization at the social level: Obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. World Futures: Vol. 45, The Quantum of Evolution, pp. 181-212.

The context of a linguisticexpression is defined as everything outside theexpression itself that is necessary forunambiguous interpretation of the expression.As meaning can be conveyed either by theimplicit, shared context or by the explicitform of the expression, the degree ofcontext-dependence or ``contextuality'' ofcommunication will vary, depending on thesituation and preferences of the languageproducer. An empirical measure of thisvariation is proposed, the ``formality'' or``F-score'', based on the frequencies ofdifferent word classes. Nouns, adjectives,articles and prepositions are more frequent inlow-context or ``formal'' types of (...) expression;pronouns, adverbs, verbs and interjections aremore frequent in high-context styles. Thismeasure adequately distinguishes differentgenres of language production using data forDutch, French, Italian, and English. Factoranalyses applied to data in 7 differentlanguages produce a similar factor as the mostimportant one. Both the data and thetheoretical model suggest that contextualitydecreases when unambiguous understandingbecomes more important or more difficult toachieve, when the separation in space, time orbackground between the interlocutors increases,and when the speaker is male, introvertedand/or academically educated. (shrink)

Testing the validity of knowledge requires formal expression of that knowledge. Formality of an expression is defined as the invariance, under changes of context, of the expression's meaning, i.e. the distinction which the expression represents. This encompasses both mathematical formalism and operational determination. The main advantages of formal expression are storability, universal communicability, and testability. They provide a selective edge in the Darwinian competition between ideas. However, formality can never be complete, as the context cannot be eliminated. Primitive terms, observation (...) set-ups, and background conditions are inescapable parts of formal or operational definitions, that all refer to a context beyond the formal system. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Theorem provide special cases of this more universal limitation principle. Context-dependent expressions, on the other hand, have the benefit of being more flexible, intuitive and direct, and putting less strain on memory. It is concluded that formality is not an absolute property, but a context-dependent one: different people will apply different amounts of formality in different situations or for different purposes. Some recent computational and empirical studies of formality and contexts illustrate the emerging scientific investigation of this dependence. (shrink)

In 1985, a member of the Canadian judiciary handed down a written judgment in which he distinguished between erotica and obscene matter. The judgment attracted the scorn of some normative sociologists, who complained of the insufficiency of the social psychological research on which it was based. Their reaction prompts a review of the judgment in the light of social constructionism and of ethnomethodology; this, in turn, prompts a comparison of social constructionist and ethnomethodological methodologies, in which the legal judgment serves (...) merely as a test case. It is argued that normative sociology and social constructionism, both being of an essentially ironic cast, occlude the judge's sense-making procedures, the very phenomena they purport to describe. Ethnomethodology, on the other hand, being nonironic, promises to capture those procedures. (shrink)

SummaryThe paper is a critique of Moore's conception of common sense – a conception based on two central propositions. The critique is specific and textual in character but turns generally upon the difficulties inherent in Moore's attempt to articulate definite propositional grounds for common sense knowledge. By contrast, the discourse of the critique favours a praxiological conception of common sense and so proceeds to show how Moore's propositional conception itself emerges from certain textual and discursive techniques.RésuméCet article est une critique (...) de la conception de Moore du sens commun , conception basée sur deux propositions centrales. Cette critique a un caractère spécifique et textuel mais elle débouche sur les difficultés générates inhérentes à sa tentative ?on;expliciter des fondements propositionnels définis pour la connaissance du sens commun. Au contraire, le discours critique adopte une conception praxéologique du sens commun et montre comment la conception propositionnelle de Moore se construit à partir de certaines techniques textuelles et discursives.ZusammenfassungEs wird Moores Auffassung des common sense kritisiert, die auf zwei zentralen Behaup‐tungen beruht. Diese Kritik ist spezifischer und textlicher Natur, erstreckt sich aber allgemein auf die Schwierigkeiten, die Moores Versuch, bestimmte propositionale Griinde für Common‐sense‐Erkenntnisse zu artikulieren, eigentümlich sind. Im Gegensatz dazu begünstigt der Verfasser eine praxisorientierte Auffassung des common sense, indem er nachweist, wie Moores Auffassung selbst aus gewissen textlichen und diskursiven Techniken hervorgeht. (shrink)