Explore the vast range of titles available.

President Wilson thanked departing directors, John Farmer, AACI, [P.App] from Alberta; John Peebles, AACI, P.App from BC; Greg Bennett, AACI, P.App from Newfoundland; and, past-president, Michael Mendela, AACI, P.App, Fellow from Ontario for their commitment and years of service to the Institute. The Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC) is a leading real property valuation association with over 4,800 members across Canada and around the world. Established in 1938, AIC works collaboratively with its 10 provincial affiliated associations to grant the distinguished Accredited Appraiser Canadian Institute (AACI) and Canadian Residential Appraiser (CRA) designations. AIC is a self-regulating organization that is guided by a Code of Ethics, Rules of Professional Conduct, and Standards of Professional Practice to ensure the integrity of the profession and the protection of public interest. AIC Designated Members are highly qualified, respected professionals who undertake comprehensive curriculum, experience and examination requirements. They are committed to continuing professional development to maintain the highest level of competency within the evolving marketplace. Our members provide unbiased appraisal, appraisal review and appraisal consulting services on all types of properties within their areas of competence. For more information, go to AICanada.ca.

All levels of semiosis, from the materiality of signs to their contents and the contexts of their application, are structured by a selectivity in human experience and action that foregrounds only a fraction of the situation here and now. Before Sperber and Wilson, concepts of “relevance” were proposed in both semiotics and phenomenology to analyze this selectivity. Building critically on Alfred Schutz’s phenomenology, I suggest that a productive way to capture the fundamental role of relevance in processes of meaning-making is to see relevance as the outcome of an interplay between two antagonistic tendencies. On the one hand, socially stabilized and individually sedimented “types” guide our experience and action along established patterns. On the other hand, we are actively open to new and unexpected aspects; we are ready to deviate from types and to change typical patterns. Only both tendencies taken together account for our semiotic behavior in context. Spatial metaphors such as “ground” illuminate only a part of this interplay. Due to the double movement in what becomes relevant to us, the typical ground on which we produce and interpret signs is constantly being shifted and re-grounded, which keeps driving on an endless process of semiosis.