0306 Now, I proceed to the derivative interscope.

0307 The content level deals with semasiological issues.  Given the words of a literary text_2af, how do we discuss_2amthese words_2af by way of meaning_1a?

Or should I ask, “Given a signifier_2af, then what is the proper signification_2am?”

The literary text as semiological structuralist form_2af [presents signifiers that entangle] positivist language as matter_2am.

Given a positivist language as matter_2am, then what corresponds to its meaning_1a?

0308 Does the correspondence reflect the nature of explicit abstraction?

Does the model-regarded parole_2af of the literary text_2af entangle a language_2am, displaying the attributes of a langue_2am emerging from (and situating) the possibility of ‘positivist meaning’_1a?

Given the parole_2af of a literary text_2af, what does the entangled language_2am corresponding to langue_2am suggest by way of meaning_1a?

0309 What type of confounding is this?

The single form is in red.  The originating matter is language_2bm (fundament).  The entangled matter is language_2am(derivative).

0310 The onamasiological question concerns whether there is a spoken parole corresponding to a particular (and perhaps, yet to be fully articulated) positivist langue.

When applied to the situation-level of the derivative interscope, the onamasiological question transforms into a cultural query, asking “Is there a presence_1b to attach to the meaning_1a underlying the content-level positivist langauge_2am?”

0311 Say what?

Oh my.  I now proceed step by step.

0312 Step one, the literary text_2af (the SO_i for the semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c as SV_i) entangles an explicit abstraction_2am consisting of a label_2am emerging from (and situating) a positivist_3a meaning_1a.

In this entanglement, the fundament is confounded with the derivative.

0313 In step two, I compare the two content-level actualities.

In the fundament interscope, langue_2am (more or less actualizing a signified_1a) [substantiates] parole_2af (more or less serving as a signifier_1a).

In the derivative interscope, the literary text_2af, that was originally substantiated by the language_2bm of the mother tongue, now serves as the form_2af  (perhaps, as a semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c substituting for the literary text_2bf) entangling an expert language_2am that emerges from and situates the possibility of ‘positivist_3a meaning’_1a.

0314 This directly calls to mind the semasiological question, “Given a spoken word_2am, then what is its meaning_1a?”

In other words, what is the meaning_1a (associated to signifier_1a) of the explicit abstraction_2am (associated to parole_2af) in the derivative interscope?

0315 For the fundament, definition is regarded as implicit for the originating language_2bm, specified by a text’s {langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af}.

For the derivative, definition must be explicit, leading to the semasiological question.  An explicit abstraction_2am (a label, parallel to parole_2af) is entertained (or entangled).  However, the positivist meaning_1a, which may serve as a metaphorical signifier_1a for the explicit label_2am resides in the domain of possibility₁. An explicit abstraction_2amemerges from (and situates) the potential of positivist meaning_1a in the normal context of the TMS intellect_3a.

0316 Step three, the derivative’s explicit abstraction_2am manifests as a label_2am arising (like a parole_2af) from the potential of ‘positivist_3a meaning’_1a (serving as a metaphorical signifier_1a).  The label_2am (the fundament’s parole_2afserves as a metaphor) emerges from a meaning_1a (the fundament’s signifier_1a serves as a metaphor) and its signified_1acarries the potential of ‘exhibiting explicit positivist_3a meaning’_1a (and the fundament’s signified_1a serves as a metaphor).

0317 In short, the entangled language_2am seems like parole_2af.

Plus, positivist meaning_1a seems like a signifier_1a.

The language_2am of the explicit abstraction_2am (the metaphorical parole_2af) appears to do justice to the TMS positivist intellect_3a and the potential of ‘meaning’_1a (the metaphorical signifier_1a).

How about a diagram of four elements of the derivative interscope?

0318 So far, step three covers the content-level elements.

0319 Once again, Saussure’s langue_2am (for the fundament interscope) also serves as a metaphor for the literary text_2af(for the derivative interscope).  The literary text_2af (perhaps, now a semiological_2a structuralist_2b model_2c substituting for the literary text_2bf) is formally contextualized by the TMS positivist intellect_3a and is alchemically enclosed in the scholar’s inquiry as a metaphorical langue_1am, corresponding to the possibility of a ‘signified’_1a.

Saussure’s parole_2af serves as a metaphor for the language_2am that is entangled by the literary text_2af.  This metaphorical parole_2am is both finally and efficiently related to the potential of a ‘positivist_3a signifier’_1a“ by way of definition₃.

Of course, this sounds a little goofy, since an explicit abstraction_2am emerges from a metaphorical signifier_1a, and I am not sure what the corresponding ‘signified’₁ might be.

0320 For the fundament interscope, I know that langue_2am [substantiates] parole_2af.

For the derivative interscope, I suspect that the literary text (semiological structuralist model)_2af as metaphorical langue_2am [now appears to substantiate] a language_2am as a metaphorical parole_2af, offering an explicit label_2amallowing a positivist signifier to constellate_1a.

Does that imply that the label_2am (metaphorical parole_2af, associated to signifier_1a) precedes its meaning_1a(metaphorical langue_2am, associated to signified_1a)?

That is a very good question.

0321 In step four, I ask, “If the explicit abstraction_2am that labels a positivist meaning_1a constellates the potential of ‘a signifier’_1a, then what is the corresponding ‘signified₁‘?”

It cannot be the literary text_2af, because the literary text_2af is the metaphorical langue_2am that corresponds to… um… the interventional sign-object (SO_i) of the structuralist_3a semiological_2a model_2c (SV_i).

If that is the case, then the corresponding signified₁ may be something_1b that acknowledges the presence of the entangled language_2am.  Plus, it_1b should show up on the situation level.

0322 Ah, I have arrived at the situation level.

If the onomasiological question concerns whether there is a spoken parole_2af corresponding to a particular langue_2am, then how does the question apply to a situation where the presence of a signifier_1a, underlying an explicit abstraction_2am, requires a corresponding situation-located signified_1b?

Given the presence_1b of a metaphorical signifier_1a, then what technical term might label that presence_1b as a signified_1b?

Would such a signified_1b support a referent_2b as the situation-level actuality_2b that virtually situates the entangled explicit abstraction_2am?

0323 So maybe, the onamosiological question may be reframed by the situation-level of the derivative interscope.

Does the presence_1b of a label_2am associated to the entangled language_2am of positivist signifiers_1a in the derivative interscope serve as a signified_1b that is situated by cognition_2am, as a situation-level actuality_2b in the normal context of cultural studies_3b?

0324 Well, if that reframed question sounds plausible, then I can offer the following conclusions.

The fundament interscope operates as an empirio-schematic description of what is going on in any particular literary text.  What is going on when an author writes and a reader reads entails implicit abstraction, for the most part.  In other words, the writer conveys a text and the reader uses the same text in order to fill in the elements of a purely relational structure associated with langue.

This implicit process is the subject matter for semiology_3a and structuralism_3b.  These two fields of inquiry culminate ina judgment, actualized as a model_2c.

The derivative interscope serves as a Positivist description of what is going on when writing and reading a particular literary text.  This description uses explicit labels_2am, bearing the qualities of a metaphorical parole_2af (that is, of a positivist signifier_1a), that will be virtually situated by a cultural thing_2b.  In short, an explicit abstraction_2am (SV_s) broadly stands for a cultural thing_2b (SO_s) in regards to cultural studies_3b operating on the potential of a signified_1b(virtually situating a positivist signifier_1a)’ (SI_s).

0325 Thus, the situation level of the derivative wrestles with onomasiological issues in a strange manner.

Given a signified_1b, then what is the name of the corresponding referent_2b?

Does cognition_2bm, as a situation-level actuality_2b in the normal context of cultural studies_3b, virtually situate the presence_1b of a label_2am associated to the entangled language_2am of positivist signifiers_1a in the derivative interscope?

0326 {Cognition as matter_2bm [substantiates] social and cultural interaction as form_2bf} situates the presence_1b of positivist_3a meaning_1a in the normal context of cultural studies_3b.

0327 May I further transform the onomasiological question and ask, “Is the situation-level actuality of cognition_2bmand social interaction_2bf  the referent of an explicit abstraction_2am (or label_2am) that is entangled by a literary text_2af?”

The answer is, “Yeah, just watch what people do after they read a particular text.”

Do actions speak louder than words?

Hmmm.