This article describes the process of transforming a symbolic code into weave actions of weavers in Kashmiri carpet weaving and how a trade-specific language features crucially in this transformation. The designs in Kashmiri carpet weaving are encoded in a symbolic code, called talim, which the weavers decode while weaving the design. This transformation from code-to-weave is achieved by subjecting the code to various interpretative frameworks, that is, modality and linguistic, and weaving actions are aligned in accordance with them. The transformation remains similar in single and multi-weaver settings, with an exception that, in the latter, the code is read aloud in practice-specific trade language among the team of weavers.
AgerfalkPJet al. (2006) Reflecting on action in language, organizations and information systems. European Journal of Information Systems15: 4–8.
2.
AustinJL (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3.
BecknerCet al. (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning59(1): 1–26.
4.
BreulC (2013) Language in aviation: The relevance of linguistics and relevance theory. LSP Journal4(1): 71–86.
5.
ClarkA (2006) Language, embodiment and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences10(8): 370–374. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012.
6.
ClarkHH (1996) Communities, commonalities and communication. In: GumprezJJLevinsonSC (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 324–355.
7.
EggerEWagnerF (1992) Negotiating temporal orders: The case of collaborative time management in a surgery clinic. Computer Supported Cooperative Work1(4): 255–275.
8.
FloresCFLudlowJ (1981) Doing and speaking in the office. In: FickGSpragueR (eds) Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges. London: Pergamon Press, 95–118.
9.
FloresFet al. (1988) Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems6(2): 153–172.
10.
GarbisCArtmanH (1998) Team communication and coordination as distributed cognition. Proceedings of 9th Conference of Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and Cooperation, 151–156.
11.
GeeJP (2001) Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy44(8): 714–725. DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.44.8.3.
12.
GutwinCGreenbergS (2004) The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In: SalasEFioreSM (eds) Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance. Washington, DC: APA Press, 177–201.
13.
HarperRHughesJ (1993) ‘What a f-ing system! Send ’em all to the same place and then expect us to stop ’em hitting’: Making technology work in air traffic control. In: ButtonG (ed.) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology. London: Routledge, 127–144.
HoltgravesTM (2002) Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
HutchinsE (1995) Cognition in the Wild. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
19.
KhanFA (1993) Cognitive organization and work activity: A study of carpet-weavers in Kashmir. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition15(2): 48–53.
20.
KobayashiHet al. (2018) Language use in joint action: The means of referring expression. International Journal of Social Robotics. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0462-3 (accessed 14 May 2018).
21.
LakoffGJohnsonM (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind & Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
22.
LawrenceW (1893) The Valley of Kashmir. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
LeitnerGW (1882) Linguistic Fragments Discovered in 1870, 1872 and 1879 Relating to the Dialect of the Magadds and Other Wandering Tribes. Lahore: Punjab Government Civil Secretariat Press.
24.
MajidAet al. (2004) Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8(3): 108–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.
25.
MathurA (2004) Indian Carpets: A Hand-Knotted Heritage. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.
26.
MoorcroftW (1841) Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and the Punjab, in Ladakh and Kashmir; In Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz, and Bokhara: From 1819 to 1825. London: John Murray
27.
OkothOPIssacONStephanO (2018) Kiswahili ya Jela: The features of the Kenyan prison argot. International Journal of Language and Linguistics6(6): 186–195. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180606.11.
28.
SchmidtKSimoneC (1999) Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work5(2): 155–200.
29.
SearleJ (1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: GundersonK (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 344–369.
30.
SmithEA (2010) Communication and collective action: Language and the evolution of human cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior31: 231–245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.03.001 (accessed 10 June 2018).
31.
SuchmanLA (1983) Office procedures as practical action: Models of work and system design. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems1(4): 320–328.
32.
SuchmanLA (1994) Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)2: 177–190.
33.
WilliamsRF (2006) Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In: BarabSAet al. (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the learning Sciences2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 838–844.
34.
WinogradT (1987) A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human Computer Interactions3(1): 3–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0301_2
35.
WinogradTFloresF (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. New York: Ablex Publishing.
