[Martin Taylor 2007.06.08.15.06]
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.08.1005 MDT)]
I'd love to see Martin Taylor's Layered-Protocol analysis of that social-linguistic convention.
I'm off in a couple of hours, so this has to be quick.
I don't think that LPT would say anything about any particular arbitrary convention, whether it be one such as Bill mentioned (not praising, but slightly denigrating, a brilliant performance), or the fact that the sound "d o g" rather that "z i m" is used to refer to a four-footed animal that barks. LPT applies to the process of communication rather than its content, just as PCT applies to the process of behaviour rather than to the actual behaviour that is used to counter a particular disturbance at a particular time by a particular individual.
In the case of, shall we say "non-social", PCT, the actions that can counter a particular disturbance are constrained by the physico-chemical nature of the feedback path. The laws of physics and chemistry tend to not change very much over the lifetime of a species, so there is likely to be much in common between the actions of randomly chosen individuals of a species when placed in a particular environment, stressed in a particular way (i.e. hit with disturbances to perceptual variables that have commonly held reference values -- such as depriving the individual of food), and offered a small selection of availabel actions.
With "social" PCT, of which Layered Protocol Theory is an example, the means of countering a disturbance, or of changing a perception to a new reference value, have a feedback path that depends on the way another individual counters a disturbance that you (the initial actor) induce. If the other individual shares some arbitrary convention with you, then you are pretty well assured that if you create a particular kind of disturbance, you will get the other to act in a way you can expect to be fairly consistent. If, in Nazi Germany, you were to raise your arm rigidly at 45 degrees in front of you and say "Heil Hitler", it's very likely that the other person would repeat the action. But if you did that in England or America at the time, it is doubtful that you would get the same reaction from the other. You would be creating a disturbance to a perception that formed part of a different convention.
Conventions can be anything that is in some way unnatural. I mean unnatural in the sense that when the action is indeed used as a convention, it would be unlikely to be perceived by the other as having been performed to counter a disturbance unrelated to the communication. A Masonic handshake, the sardonic English "Well done" when you've totally botched something (akin to Bill's "You pulled it", I think), thrusting the arm rigidly in the air at 45 degrees when the Fuehrer passes by -- none of those things are likely to have been said or done for other purposes, and are reasonable candidates for conventional interpretation by someone who sees the action.
The meanings of the convention to the actor and to the viewer/listener can be determined only be learning the particular convention. That can be done by growing up in the milieu (as are the conventions of your native language), by being told, or by careful observation if you are a foreigner to the cultural/social group that employs the convention.
It's not something LPT can address directly. LPT can suggest how to think about convention, but it can't suggest what a particular convention might be, or why it came about (at least not without an analysis of the wider culture and its history, if then).
Sorry I won't be able to answer any responses.
Martin