From smago@uga.edu Mon Jun 1 10:46:57 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:46:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] "Language Gap" forum in JLA Message-ID: A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Avineri et al. (2015)-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 176264 bytes Desc: Avineri et al. (2015)-1.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150601/36761cff/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 1 11:18:47 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:18:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks!! mike On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 1 11:20:33 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:20:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has made such a comback. mike On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > thanks!! > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p >> >> > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From smago@uga.edu Mon Jun 1 11:54:28 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:54:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on how kids are talked to at home. How many white university researchers--the sort of people who makes these claims--have ever tried to get up a housing project staircase to talk to anyone and see what they're saying and where they learned it from? (I say staircase because when I lived in Chicago, a chronic problem of high rise housing projects was that gangs would disable the elevators as soon as they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells to control life in the building.) -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has made such a comback. mike On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > thanks!! > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p >> >> > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 1 12:16:06 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:16:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? Its one of my list of topics lurching along m On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the > tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the > tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the Matthew > Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on how kids are > talked to at home. How many white university researchers--the sort of > people who makes these claims--have ever tried to get up a housing project > staircase to talk to anyone and see what they're saying and where they > learned it from? (I say staircase because when I lived in Chicago, a > chronic problem of high rise housing projects was that gangs would disable > the elevators as soon as they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells > to control life in the building.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has made > such a comback. > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > thanks!! > > mike > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you > see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't > even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From smago@uga.edu Mon Jun 1 12:56:37 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:56:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, help us out with some titles? -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:16 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? Its one of my list of topics lurching along m On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the > tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the > tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the > Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on > how kids are talked to at home. How many white university > researchers--the sort of people who makes these claims--have ever > tried to get up a housing project staircase to talk to anyone and see > what they're saying and where they learned it from? (I say staircase > because when I lived in Chicago, a chronic problem of high rise > housing projects was that gangs would disable the elevators as soon as > they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells to control life in > the building.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has > made such a comback. > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > thanks!! > > mike > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jun 1 13:55:31 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:55:31 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A colleague just forwarded a 2003 article by Hart and Risley that summarizes their findings and which is one of the main subjects of the JLA critique. Thoughts? -greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: HartRisley_2003_Education Review.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40892 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150601/9103c3a7/attachment.pdf From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jun 1 14:05:26 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:05:26 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I recently read Paul Tough's book Whatever it Takes about Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. I recall that Hart and Risley's study was one among many that were central to Canada's vision of things (and it played a very central role in the argument presented in the book). I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a way of dealing with the problem of fundraising and getting funding. Anyone else? -greg On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Mike, help us out with some titles? > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:16 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? > Its one of my list of topics lurching along > > m > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using > > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the > > tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the > > tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. > > > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the > > Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on > > how kids are talked to at home. How many white university > > researchers--the sort of people who makes these claims--have ever > > tried to get up a housing project staircase to talk to anyone and see > > what they're saying and where they learned it from? (I say staircase > > because when I lived in Chicago, a chronic problem of high rise > > housing projects was that gangs would disable the elevators as soon as > > they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells to control life in > > the building.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has > > made such a comback. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > thanks!! > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky > > wrote: > > > > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you > see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't > even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 1 15:39:22 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:39:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I thought this topic was in an exchange between Peter and myself, but glad to see I was wrong. My own very partial response on this specific issue is attached. At least its short! The directly relevant material is the description of the work of bill hall and colleagues conducted in the 1970's and widely ignored. The illusion that parent training programs will end poverty is certainly a powerful one in the United States. At the very least, social scientists can stop making inequalities worse by misusing the tools of their trade eggregiously. mike On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Yes, I recently read Paul Tough's book Whatever it Takes about Geoffrey > Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. I recall that Hart and Risley's study was > one among many that were central to Canada's vision of things (and it > played a very central role in the argument presented in the book). > I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a way of dealing with the > problem of fundraising and getting funding. > Anyone else? > -greg > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > Mike, help us out with some titles? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:16 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > > > did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? > > Its one of my list of topics lurching along > > > > m > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky > wrote: > > > > > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using > > > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the > > > tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the > > > tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. > > > > > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the > > > Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on > > > how kids are talked to at home. How many white university > > > researchers--the sort of people who makes these claims--have ever > > > tried to get up a housing project staircase to talk to anyone and see > > > what they're saying and where they learned it from? (I say staircase > > > because when I lived in Chicago, a chronic problem of high rise > > > housing projects was that gangs would disable the elevators as soon as > > > they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells to control life in > > > the building.) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA > > > > > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has > > > made such a comback. > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > thanks!! > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you > > see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that > isn't > > even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: deficit.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 301711 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150601/66f09ae3/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 1 15:44:59 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:44:59 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?Re solving poverty. This story from the NY Times seems worthy of consideration. All one has to do is scale up this program a tad. Imagine! mike? On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > I thought this topic was in an exchange between Peter and myself, but glad > to see I was wrong. My own very partial response on this specific issue is > attached. At least its short! > The directly relevant material is the description of the work of bill hall > and colleagues conducted in the 1970's and widely ignored. > > The illusion that parent training programs will end poverty is certainly a > powerful one in the United States. At the very least, social scientists can > stop making inequalities worse by misusing the tools of their trade > eggregiously. > > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> Yes, I recently read Paul Tough's book Whatever it Takes about Geoffrey >> Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. I recall that Hart and Risley's study was >> one among many that were central to Canada's vision of things (and it >> played a very central role in the argument presented in the book). >> I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a way of dealing with the >> problem of fundraising and getting funding. >> Anyone else? >> -greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >> >> > Mike, help us out with some titles? >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:16 PM >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA >> > >> > did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? >> > Its one of my list of topics lurching along >> > >> > m >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >> > >> > > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using >> > > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on the >> > > tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words are on the >> > > tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. >> > > >> > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the >> > > Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer based on >> > > how kids are talked to at home. How many white university >> > > researchers--the sort of people who makes these claims--have ever >> > > tried to get up a housing project staircase to talk to anyone and see >> > > what they're saying and where they learned it from? (I say staircase >> > > because when I lived in Chicago, a chronic problem of high rise >> > > housing projects was that gangs would disable the elevators as soon as >> > > they opened and patrol the lobbies and stairwells to control life in >> > > the building.) >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole >> > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA >> > > >> > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty has >> > > made such a comback. >> > > mike >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: >> > > >> > > > thanks!! >> > > > mike >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >> > > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >> > > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >> > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >> > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you >> > see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that >> isn't >> > even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TengeloPark.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150601/f66a4042/attachment.doc From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 1 17:38:37 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:38:37 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts Message-ID: The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's the wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, they must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. Romeo hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: Non, ce n'est pas le jour. Ce n'est pas l'allouette. Dont le chant a frappe Ton orielle inquiete (No, it is not the day That is not the lark Whose song has struck Your sleepless ear) But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: C'est le doux rossignol Confidant d'amour! (It's the sweet nightengale The confidant of love!) And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to reverse roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's idea and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes that you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le jour...." All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth century they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds come in precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is an electric alarm clock. Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks than in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; they heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear it as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and the alarm is designed to mimick a lark? Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way (hierarchically) when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to match the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary and so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find that there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help the young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian animals to teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first like a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and "beaver" the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while beavers are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow alliterates with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, pineapple-pig. Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But all of them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an artefact down through history. If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo dies before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, she awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed it...2:31:00. "No, it is not the day That is not the lark... It's the sweet nightengale The confidant of love!" Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that poor Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before he kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound has the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a digital alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 David Kellogg From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 1 18:21:57 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:21:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back to the sensory "ground" of concepts. I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this question] "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance with Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what makes a human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If it is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the answer is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of the symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" and Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. Larry On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's the > wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, they > must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > > Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. Romeo > hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > > Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > Dont le chant a frappe > Ton orielle inquiete > > (No, it is not the day > That is not the lark > Whose song has struck > Your sleepless ear) > > But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > > C'est le doux rossignol > Confidant d'amour! > > (It's the sweet nightengale > The confidant of love!) > > And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to reverse > roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's idea > and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes that > you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le jour...." > > All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth century > they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds come in > precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is an > electric alarm clock. > > Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks than > in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; they > heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear it > as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and the > alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > > Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that > MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way (hierarchically) > when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are > related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and > processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to match > the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary and > so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > > It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find that > there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help the > young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian animals to > teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > > moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > > With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first like > a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and "beaver" > the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while beavers > are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow alliterates > with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > pineapple-pig. > > Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But all of > them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an artefact > down through history. > > If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the > opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo dies > before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, she > awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he > remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed > it...2:31:00. > > "No, it is not the day > That is not the lark... > It's the sweet nightengale > The confidant of love!" > > Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that poor > Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before he > kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound has > the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a digital > alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > > David Kellogg > From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Mon Jun 1 14:30:17 2015 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:30:17 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical SIG call for proposals--AERA 2016 Message-ID: Hello, XMCAers! This email contains a call for proposals for the AERA?s Cultural-Historical Research SIG. The submission period for AERA has officially opened; the deadline for submissions is July 22, 2015. The 2016 AERA Annual Meeting will be held in Washington, DC, USA, April 8-12, 2016; it will convene around the theme ?Public Scholarship to Educate Diverse Democracies.? (See a description of the theme here and see information about how to submit paper and session proposals here .) The Cultural-Historical Research SIG call for proposals is included in the body of this email and as an attachment below. If you have questions, please direct them to the Program Co-Chairs Nancy Ares ( nares@warner.rochester.edu) or Natalia Gajdamaschko ( natalia.gajdamaschko@gmail.com). Best, Jacob McWilliams Communications Chair, Cultural-Historical Research SIG, AERA Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com *Cultural-Historical Research SIG Call for Proposals* *For AERA 2016 Annual Meeting:* *?Public Scholarship to Educate Diverse Democracies?* When AERA was founded a century ago, Lev Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work leading to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and would reshape how learning, development, culture, play, language and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky?s theories (and those of his colleagues) are now some of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky?s original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices, including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and related critical and post-modern approaches, all of which are represented by the Cultural-Historical Research SIG. The CHR SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2016 Annual Meeting that represent the breadth and relevance of Vygotskian, Socio-Cultural, Activity and related theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: - The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of CHR, including, socio-cultural, Marxist, activity, and arts-based and postmodern approaches. - The relevance of Vygotsky for innovations in education that offer creative responses to the ongoing education ?crisis? in the US and around the world - The range of methodologies that utilize CH approaches, including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies - The diversity of fields and settings in which CH theory is used and to which it is applicable (i.e. early childhood, outside of school, STEM learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL). - Proposals that explore the past, present and future of CH approaches. - Proposals that address the intersections of CH theories with critical theories that include, for example, focus on relations of power, activities that create the ?Other,? and sources of oppression. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2016 AERA CHR SIG call.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17669 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150601/58f09fea/attachment.bin From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 2 03:19:59 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:19:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry to add to the reading load, but these are short op-eds. It's a series of 2 essays in response to a U of Maryland professor's haughty dismissal of community college students. Smagorinsky, P. (2015, February 9). Issue isn?t welding vs. Chaucer. It?s how to remove barriers to college. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/09/opinion-issue-isnt-welding-vs-chaucer-its-how-to-remove-barriers-to-college/ Smagorinsky, P. (2015, February 25). Community college: Not ?failing diploma mills,? but pathways to success. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/25/community-college-not-failing-diploma-mills-but-pathways-to-success/ The second essay includes the following attention to a program designed to help low-income women advance their education, often beginning in community colleges. Of course, you are welcome to send in a donation. These are good people doing great work. "One person wrote suggesting I look at the Jeannette Rankin Foundation, whose mission is dedicated to helping mature, low-income women 35 and older succeed through education, often beginning with an associate?s degree. http://www.rankinfoundation.org/ " -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 6:45 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA ?Re solving poverty. This story from the NY Times seems worthy of consideration. All one has to do is scale up this program a tad. Imagine! mike? On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > I thought this topic was in an exchange between Peter and myself, but > glad to see I was wrong. My own very partial response on this specific > issue is attached. At least its short! > The directly relevant material is the description of the work of bill > hall and colleagues conducted in the 1970's and widely ignored. > > The illusion that parent training programs will end poverty is > certainly a powerful one in the United States. At the very least, > social scientists can stop making inequalities worse by misusing the > tools of their trade eggregiously. > > mike > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > >> Yes, I recently read Paul Tough's book Whatever it Takes about >> Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. I recall that Hart and >> Risley's study was one among many that were central to Canada's >> vision of things (and it played a very central role in the argument presented in the book). >> I can't help but wonder if this isn't just a way of dealing with the >> problem of fundraising and getting funding. >> Anyone else? >> -greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: >> >> > Mike, help us out with some titles? >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike >> > xmca-l-bounces+cole >> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:16 PM >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA >> > >> > did you see my paper on this issue using bill hall's work? >> > Its one of my list of topics lurching along >> > >> > m >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Peter Smagorinsky >> wrote: >> > >> > > I agree. The "word gap" research has often been conducted using >> > > standardized vocabulary tests that assume that if words aren't on >> > > the tests, then they don't really count. And guess whose words >> > > are on the tests? Not the kid in the housing project or barrio. >> > > >> > > But I've heard well-regarded university professors refer to the >> > > Matthew Effect of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer >> > > based on how kids are talked to at home. How many white >> > > university researchers--the sort of people who makes these >> > > claims--have ever tried to get up a housing project staircase to >> > > talk to anyone and see what they're saying and where they learned >> > > it from? (I say staircase because when I lived in Chicago, a >> > > chronic problem of high rise housing projects was that gangs >> > > would disable the elevators as soon as they opened and patrol the >> > > lobbies and stairwells to control life in the building.) >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike >> > > xmca-l-bounces+cole >> > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:21 PM >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "Language Gap" forum in JLA >> > > >> > > Very interesting paper. It is amazing how the culture of poverty >> > > has made such a comback. >> > > mike >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:18 AM, mike cole wrote: >> > > >> > > > thanks!! >> > > > mike >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Peter Smagorinsky >> > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> A lot of pretty smart contributors to this forum. p >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >> > > > makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you >> > > > see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs >> > > > Through it* >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >> > > makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >> > > something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs >> > > Through it* >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >> > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >> > something that >> isn't >> > even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 2 03:31:22 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:31:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] new term Message-ID: For the first time ever, Mx-- to be added to the list of Mr, Mrs, Miss and Ms- by the OED as a legitimate term for those who identify as transgender or anyone else who does not identify with a particular gender. From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 2 13:43:41 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:43:41 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: The Success of Community College Students In-Reply-To: <040201d09d6f$71506810$f707f10a@94160WEBDB> References: <040201d09d6f$71506810$f707f10a@94160WEBDB> Message-ID: Relevant to your piece on community college students, Peter. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Teachers College Record Date: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM Subject: The Success of Community College Students To: Recipient [image: Title] [image: Subscribe Today] [image: transparent 13] Freely-Available This Week Articles The Influence of Co-Enrollment on the Success of Traditional Age Community College Students by Gloria Crisp This study measures the impact of co-enrollment on community college success outcomes. Results demonstrate co-enrolling significantly increases students' odds of success. Mapping Low-Income African American Parents' Roles in Their Children's Education in a Changing Political Economy by Stuart Greene This research reframes the roles that low-income African American parents play in their children's lives and challenges deficit perspectives of parent involvement. Commentaries Who's Swallowing the *Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers* Report? Discussing, Understanding, and Wondering by Kirsten Agius, Jenny Aitken, Mindy Blaise, Kelly Boucher, Catherine Hamm, Jeanne Marie Iorio, Brenda Lovell & John McCartin The Early Childhood Discipline Group at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia dissects the *Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers* report released by the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, questioning how the recommendations were developed and raising concern for the report's lack of focus on early childhood teacher education. Book Reviews Globalization and International Education by Robin Shields reviewed by Sherrie Rhodes Beeson & Nancy Nelson ------------------------------ Diversity and Education: A Critical Multicultural Approach by Michael Vavrus reviewed by Terri L. Rodriguez ------------------------------ The Normal Accident Theory of Education: Why Reform and Regulation Won't Make Schools Better by Andrew K. Milton reviewed by Asia Fuller Hamilton & Anjal? D. Welton ------------------------------ Education 3.0: Seven Steps to Better Schools by James G. Lengel reviewed by Eric Kalenze ------------------------------ Strategic Inquiry: Starting Small for Big Results in Education by Nell Scharff Panero & Joan E. Talbert reviewed by Simona Goldin & Michaela Krug O'Neill Editorial Annual Yearbooks for 2015 by Gary Natriello The editors of the Teachers College Record are pleased to announce the Annual Yearbooks for 2015. For Subscribers See these relevant articles online: "Write Like College": How Remedial Writing Courses at a Community College and a Research University Position "At-Risk" Students in the Field of Higher Education by M. Kate Callahan & Donalda Chumney Callahan and Chumney use a comparative case study approach to examine the experiences and outcomes of remedial writing students enrolled in two urban public institutions: a community college and a research university. Applying Bourdieu's theory of practice, this ethnographic study reveals that institutions further determine the advantage or disadvantage of remedial students by controlling their access to cultural capital, which is critical for navigating the field of higher education successfully. Baccalaureate Expectations of Community College Students: Socio-Demographic, Motivational, and Contextual Influences by Xueli Wang Drawing upon data from the first and second follow-up interviews of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002), this study investigated socio-demographic, motivational, and postsecondary contextual factors that explain community college students' baccalaureate expectations. Academic-Occupational Integration as a Reform Strategy for the Community College: Classroom Perspectives by Dolores Perin A case study examines the integration of academic and occupational education in community colleges. Consideration of benefits and obstacles suggests that this reform has potential for improving both general and career-related education. Online Education as Institutional Myth: Rituals and Realities at Community Colleges by Rebecca D. Cox Relying on data from an in-depth study of 15 community colleges, this article explores online education through the lens of institutional theory. This theoretical perspective highlights the colleges' environmental contexts and offers a critical examination of the ways that the institutional contexts have structured the colleges' approaches to online education. At the core of this analysis is the contention that community colleges are interpreting and responding to a set of taken-for-granted ideas about online education. These ideas have taken on the status of myth and have played a powerful role in guiding and legitimating colleges' online activity. This analysis provides a research-based foundation for understanding online activity at the community college level and for carefully addressing the challenges associated with its adoption. Follow us on Twitter: @TCRecord ------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please browse to: https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520 -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 2 14:20:02 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 06:20:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Larry: So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and choose to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error of taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of the RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of the criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and sometimes even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live in. It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, the second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, I don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy says, the "environment" has to include an element of human consciousness, of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be idealism, make the most of it! There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt to link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really WAS an idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years old! But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one of the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of whether Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of the players--are flesh and blood). Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the Symbolists into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both chaotic, organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that it was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical linguistics! David Kellogg On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > David, > A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back to > the sensory "ground" of concepts. > > I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its > relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" > > Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this > question] > > "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of > real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance with > Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what makes a > human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If it > is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is > materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" > > "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the answer > is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of the > symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and > "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. > > I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" and > Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. > > Larry > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's the > > wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, > they > > must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > > captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > > > > Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. Romeo > > hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > > > > Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > > Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > > Dont le chant a frappe > > Ton orielle inquiete > > > > (No, it is not the day > > That is not the lark > > Whose song has struck > > Your sleepless ear) > > > > But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > > > > C'est le doux rossignol > > Confidant d'amour! > > > > (It's the sweet nightengale > > The confidant of love!) > > > > And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to > reverse > > roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's > idea > > and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes that > > you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le jour...." > > > > All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth > century > > they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds come > in > > precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is an > > electric alarm clock. > > > > Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks > than > > in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; > they > > heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear it > > as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and the > > alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > > > > Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > > GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that > > MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way (hierarchically) > > when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > > experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are > > related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and > > processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to > match > > the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary and > > so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > > > > It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find that > > there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help the > > young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian animals > to > > teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > > > > moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > > > > With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first > like > > a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and "beaver" > > the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while beavers > > are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow > alliterates > > with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > > pineapple-pig. > > > > Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But all > of > > them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an artefact > > down through history. > > > > If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the > > opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo dies > > before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, she > > awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he > > remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed > > it...2:31:00. > > > > "No, it is not the day > > That is not the lark... > > It's the sweet nightengale > > The confidant of love!" > > > > Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that > poor > > Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before he > > kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > > demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound > has > > the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a > digital > > alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > > > > David Kellogg > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Review in System.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 167387 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150603/05092768/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 2 15:02:23 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:02:23 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, but Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by the followers of Rubenshtein. mike PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Dear Larry: > > So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and choose > to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! > > Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error of > taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of the > RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing > some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of the > criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling > ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") > > I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already > pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an > "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. > They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and sometimes > even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window > sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live in. > > It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized > by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, the > second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, I > don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the > same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy > says, the "environment" has to include an element of human consciousness, > of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five > million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be idealism, > make the most of it! > > There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently > (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by > the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt to > link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really WAS an > idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years old! > But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian > Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one of > the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but > have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of whether > Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only > symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of > the players--are flesh and blood). > > Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the Symbolists > into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both chaotic, > organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's > correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by > which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that it > was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical > linguistics! > > David Kellogg > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > > > David, > > A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back to > > the sensory "ground" of concepts. > > > > I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its > > relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" > > > > Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this > > question] > > > > "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of > > real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance > with > > Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what > makes a > > human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If > it > > is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is > > materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" > > > > "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the > answer > > is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of > the > > symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and > > "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. > > > > I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" > and > > Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. > > > > Larry > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's the > > > wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, > > they > > > must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > > > captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > > > > > > Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. > Romeo > > > hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > > > > > > Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > > > Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > > > Dont le chant a frappe > > > Ton orielle inquiete > > > > > > (No, it is not the day > > > That is not the lark > > > Whose song has struck > > > Your sleepless ear) > > > > > > But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > > > > > > C'est le doux rossignol > > > Confidant d'amour! > > > > > > (It's the sweet nightengale > > > The confidant of love!) > > > > > > And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to > > reverse > > > roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's > > idea > > > and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes > that > > > you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le jour...." > > > > > > All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth > > century > > > they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds > come > > in > > > precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is > an > > > electric alarm clock. > > > > > > Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks > > than > > > in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; > > they > > > heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear > it > > > as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and the > > > alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > > > > > > Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > > > GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that > > > MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way > (hierarchically) > > > when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > > > experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are > > > related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and > > > processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to > > match > > > the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary > and > > > so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > > > > > > It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find > that > > > there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help > the > > > young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian animals > > to > > > teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > > > > > > moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > > > > > > With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first > > like > > > a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and > "beaver" > > > the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while > beavers > > > are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow > > alliterates > > > with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > > > pineapple-pig. > > > > > > Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But > all > > of > > > them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an > artefact > > > down through history. > > > > > > If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the > > > opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo > dies > > > before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, > she > > > awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he > > > remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed > > > it...2:31:00. > > > > > > "No, it is not the day > > > That is not the lark... > > > It's the sweet nightengale > > > The confidant of love!" > > > > > > Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that > > poor > > > Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before > he > > > kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > > > demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound > > has > > > the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a > > digital > > > alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From cconnery@ithaca.edu Tue Jun 2 20:15:22 2015 From: cconnery@ithaca.edu (Cathrene Connery) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 03:15:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Interesting Article on Chimp Research Message-ID: <945A56D8-B1D3-4389-A070-6D2C3FBEB328@ithaca.edu> Hi there: Thought some of you might enjoy the following article in the NYT. http://.ms/1KBUYj2 NYTimes: Chimps Would Cook if Given the Chance, Research Says Scientists from Harvard and Yale found that chimpanzees would give up raw food on the possibility that it might emerge cooked later. Dr. Cathrene Connery Associate Professor of Education Ithaca College Department of Education 194B Phillips Hall Annex 953 Danby Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Cconnery@ithaca.edu From wendy.maples@outlook.com Wed Jun 3 05:42:33 2015 From: wendy.maples@outlook.com (Wendy Maples) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:42:33 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Posting to list Message-ID: Hi! I am not sure if this email is intended to be used for actual postings, or to register that I might like to post in the future. In case it is the latter, I am sending a 'hello' now.Best wishes, Wendy From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Jun 3 07:01:03 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:01:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Posting to list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Wendy! Welcome to the list! I've not been on a year yet, but there are mighty conversations on this list to be had, as you might know, with other mighty conversants conversing and otherwise! :) Occasionally there is even poetry! Sadly, no emojiis! Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Jun 3 07:18:11 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:18:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Recent development in 1st Amendment case Message-ID: Greetings esteemed XMCA's! I thought that folks might be interested to see a Supreme Court decision where Scalia and Thomas actually ruled differently. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/06/03/violent-facebook-threats-conviction-thrown-out-by-us-supreme-court/ But more to the point, it doesn't seem to solve the problem of threatening language on places like FB. Another page in the chapter to cogitate, while we integrate social media into our society and our law... Kind regards on a Wednesday, Annalisa From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Jun 3 07:53:01 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:53:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The idea that our categories are created Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-sees-a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways the Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, something we can never hear when there are strict category boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers (using Lewin's original concept) determining what we listen to? This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been greater and greater move towards particularization and strict boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see and appreciate the "chord progressions?" Interesting to me, wonder what others think. Michael From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Jun 3 08:25:34 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:25:34 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an orientation. Huw On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-sees-a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life because my > daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't want to feel like a > complete idiot when I discuss one of her concerts with her - the article > reminds me that we (or the media trying to sell us stuff) creates > categories that then for some reason become set in stone until they aren't > anymore (but the decisions always seem to come from some place else) and > the ways the Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can > understand. > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if the > writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely you would > find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my daughter > rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing chord > progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back and forth, > rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from classical, and > derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. Perhaps there is a natural > flow as they move between each other, something we can never hear when > there are strict category boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes > these boundaries transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse > them without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers (using > Lewin's original concept) determining what we listen to? > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been greater > and greater move towards particularization and strict boundaries - AERA > isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small conferences. Will the > boundaries start to break down so we can see and appreciate the "chord > progressions?" > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > Michael > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Jun 3 08:43:29 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:43:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Huw, Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an orientation. Huw On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-sees > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click&p > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top- > news&_r=0 > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her concerts > with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media trying to sell > us stuff) creates categories that then for some reason become set in > stone until they aren't anymore (but the decisions always seem to come > from some place else) and the ways the Internet may be changing that > faster than many of us can understand. > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if the > writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely you > would find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. Perhaps > there is a natural flow as they move between each other, something we > can never hear when there are strict category boundaries. The > steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries transparent, almost > as if they don't exist, so we traverse them without thinking we are > making some type of transgression. How will appreciation of music > change when we don't have the gatekeepers (using Lewin's original concept) determining what we listen to? > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > Michael > > From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Wed Jun 3 17:18:21 2015 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (valerie A. Wilkinson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:18:21 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General Systems Theory. Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a well-developed thought this time, either. When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression of chords. (Harmonics is an ancient thread) Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created Hi Huw, Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an orientation. Huw On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-sees > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click&p > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top- > news&_r=0 > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her concerts > with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media trying to sell > us stuff) creates categories that then for some reason become set in > stone until they aren't anymore (but the decisions always seem to come > from some place else) and the ways the Internet may be changing that > faster than many of us can understand. > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if the > writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely you > would find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. Perhaps > there is a natural flow as they move between each other, something we > can never hear when there are strict category boundaries. The > steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries transparent, almost > as if they don't exist, so we traverse them without thinking we are > making some type of transgression. How will appreciation of music > change when we don't have the gatekeepers (using Lewin's original concept) determining what we listen to? > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > Michael > > From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 00:23:54 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:23:54 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to see a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty questions rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or parsing them out would be much appreciated. Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from a 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It intersperses various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do glean is more along the following lines: - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one looks elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and piano/banjo/guitar, for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others fit into or around. - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, opera, or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern the sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in churches, marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not wholly unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / descendants are usually considered within that family. - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and performance to performance. Thoughts? On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General Systems > Theory. > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a > well-developed thought this time, either. > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the work > is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a singular > representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that I've set up a > bit of homework for myself) > In that work, it sticks out like a sore thumb that the list of > "categories", when we finally get around to it, is made of incidental and > accidental "properties." > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael starts > out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression of chords. > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left brain(LB) > are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized field.) Does > "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Glassman, Michael > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > Hi Huw, > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder if a > music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw > Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance from > culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that patterns in > chord progression would be derived from that activity structure, not from > anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an orientation. > > Huw > > > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-sees > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click&p > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top- > > news&_r=0 > > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her concerts > > with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media trying to sell > > us stuff) creates categories that then for some reason become set in > > stone until they aren't anymore (but the decisions always seem to come > > from some place else) and the ways the Internet may be changing that > > faster than many of us can understand. > > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if the > > writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely you > > would find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. > > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. Perhaps > > there is a natural flow as they move between each other, something we > > can never hear when there are strict category boundaries. The > > steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries transparent, almost > > as if they don't exist, so we traverse them without thinking we are > > making some type of transgression. How will appreciation of music > > change when we don't have the gatekeepers (using Lewin's original > concept) determining what we listen to? > > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Jun 4 08:34:22 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:34:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] If John Henry was an Ethopian cab driver in Portland... Message-ID: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-24836-an_immigrants_fare_fight.html Interesting thoughts about what I would call, "What is a community of work in the face of network wars?" Kind regards, Annalisa From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Jun 4 09:04:05 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:04:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down what are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That often times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a theme. I know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already exists and applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If you are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord progression back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes the experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I have been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much of that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of the user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. How much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal forces of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet and the choices it places directly in the hands of users. Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the last few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new (or not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on this list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I can tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's et. al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original 2001 article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a Cliff notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than supports our mission. So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on Spottify makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill of recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web (forgive the pun)? How do we navigate it? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hyman Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to see a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty questions rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or parsing them out would be much appreciated. Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from a 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It intersperses various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do glean is more along the following lines: - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one looks elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and piano/banjo/guitar, for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others fit into or around. - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, opera, or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern the sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in churches, marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not wholly unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / descendants are usually considered within that family. - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and performance to performance. Thoughts? On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General > Systems Theory. > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a > well-developed thought this time, either. > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression of chords. > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Glassman, Michael > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > Hi Huw, > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw > Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an orientation. > > Huw > > > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se > > es > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click > > &p > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to > > p- > > news&_r=0 > > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways the > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. > > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different directions. > > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, > > something we can never hear when there are strict category > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers > > (using Lewin's original > concept) determining what we listen to? > > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 4 10:41:46 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:41:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Vacancy for Chair or Reader or SL or Lecturer in Dev or Cog Psychology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Blades Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:40 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Vacancy for Chair or Reader or SL or Lecturer in Dev or Cog Psychology To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org VACANCY AT UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, U.K. Reference Number: UOS010719 Closing date 16th June 2015. *Chair/ Reader/ Senior Lecturer or Lecturer in Cognitive/Developmental Psychology * Open Ended Appointment Full time Faculty of Science Department of Psychology University of Sheffield Chair - salary within the Professorial Pay Scheme Band Structure Reader/Senior Lecturer: Grade 9 ?48,743 - ?54,841 per annum, with the potential to progress to ?63,552 per annum Lecturer: Grade 8 ?38,511 to ?45,954 per annum, with the potential to progress to ?51,702 per annum The Department of Psychology is looking for an outstanding scholar (at any level of seniority) in the areas of Developmental or Cognitive Psychology, to enhance its world-leading research portfolio and excellent undergraduate/ postgraduate programmes. You should have a PhD (or equivalent qualification/experience) in a relevant discipline, have an excellent publication record for your career stage/level and be able to evidence of the ability or potential to attract independent research funding. The ability to organize and carry out teaching, supervision and research training to a high standard is also essential. You will join a vibrant department, which is amongst the largest in the UK, which importantly has been consistently ranked as one of the outstanding research departments in all seven UK Research Assessment Exercises to date. We have one of the largest centres of postgraduate psychology research in the country and were ranked 7th in the UK for research income in the ESRC?s 2011 Psychology International Benchmarking exercise. Further information about the Department is available at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/psychology/ The post is available from 1st August 2015. Further details are available from Dr Jane Herbert at j.s.herbert@sheffield.ac.uk or Dr Mark Blades at m.blades@sheffield.ac.uk _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 12:39:49 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:39:49 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Michael - Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels between music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an experience, hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, skill, refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of value. And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to understanding and enjoyment. The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond the idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of wine, of all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same industrial network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for white, I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for classical music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) in their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in his B Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George Gershwin's "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if not millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to sample the connections described in the article. But these music distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to do with making meaningful connections happen. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, > > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down what > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That often > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a theme. I > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already exists and > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If you > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord progression > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes the > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I have > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much of > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of the > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. How > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal forces > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet and the > choices it places directly in the hands of users. > > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the last > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new (or > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on this > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I can > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's et. > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original 2001 > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a Cliff > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding the > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound that > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. > > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on Spottify > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill of > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web (forgive > the pun)? How do we navigate it? > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to see > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty questions > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or parsing > them out would be much appreciated. > > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from a > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It intersperses > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do > glean is more along the following lines: > > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one looks > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and piano/banjo/guitar, > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others fit > into or around. > > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, opera, > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern the > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in churches, > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not wholly > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. > > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / descendants > are usually considered within that family. > > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and > performance to performance. > > Thoughts? > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General > > Systems Theory. > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a > > well-developed thought this time, either. > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression of > chords. > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > > > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > Glassman, Michael > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > Hi Huw, > > > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw > > Lloyd > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an > orientation. > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se > > > es > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click > > > &p > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to > > > p- > > > news&_r=0 > > > > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways the > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. > > > > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different > directions. > > > > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers > > > (using Lewin's original > > concept) determining what we listen to? > > > > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > > > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 16:48:28 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:48:28 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A propos the problem of violence in social change, which is an expression of man's persistent inability to organize, that is, re-organize her social relations in an expedient and rational way. Last night we were discussing why people take so long to kill in Shakespeare. It's not just Hamlet: in the Tempest we have one of those palindromes (you know, sentences that can be read forwards and backwards, like "Madam I'm Adam" or "Was it a car or a cat I saw?"). Or rather, we have a set of nested plots, like the sort of thing that Chinese parents tell children who nag for a story: Once upon a time there was a mountain. On the mountain was a temple. In the temple was a monk. The monk was telling a story: "Once upon a time there was a mountain..." So in the Tempest you have a voyage from Tunis interrupted by a plot interrupted by another plot interrupted by a love story interrupted by the last plot interrupted by the penultimate plot interrupted by the return voyage to Naples, and the whole folds up like a butterfly's wings or an hourglass (see also David Mitchell's novel, The Cloud Atlas, and the movie of the same name). When you read the Tempest, though, the interruptions seem perfectly natural, because nobody ever just thinks of a murder and then goes and does it; instead they spend a good hundred lines talking over whether or not it will work, until, of course, it simply can't, because there's no time left. The same thing is true in Chinese opera--an actor who contemplates suicide must count on doing so for at least an hour, and sometimes for the better part of two or three, at the very limit of his or her vocal range. It seems to me that the explanation for the procrastination of murders in Shakespeare is, once again, the ideological footprint of material artifacts. It is one thing to pull a trigger or to flip a switch and have your enemy disappear forever without a trace. It's very different when you actually have to cut and slice human flesh with a knife which may not be of the sharpest. In Shakespeare's time they had to take murder much more seriously than we do; one of the things that may have contributed to the fact that American cops kill, on the average, two people a day, is that they carry weapons with hair triggers, designed to squeeze off multiple rounds with little effort. Virginia Woolf thought that World War One would have been quite impossible had both sides simply had the imagination to see how much the enemy's life must mean to him or her. Some artifacts (e.g. "Mrs. Dalloway" or "To the Lighthouse") throw this vision into warm and brilliant light and make it indelibly our own. But other artifacts, even more surely, obscure it with a long dark shadow until it's too late. David Kellogg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mike cole wrote: > David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, but > Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in > referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge > of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by > the followers of Rubenshtein. > > mike > > PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Dear Larry: > > > > So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and choose > > to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! > > > > Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error > of > > taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of > the > > RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing > > some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of > the > > criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling > > ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") > > > > I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already > > pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an > > "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. > > They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and sometimes > > even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window > > sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live > in. > > > > It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized > > by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, > the > > second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, I > > don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the > > same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy > > says, the "environment" has to include an element of human consciousness, > > of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five > > million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be > idealism, > > make the most of it! > > > > There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently > > (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by > > the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt > to > > link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really WAS > an > > idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years old! > > But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian > > Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one > of > > the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but > > have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of > whether > > Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only > > symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of > > the players--are flesh and blood). > > > > Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the Symbolists > > into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both chaotic, > > organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's > > correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by > > which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that it > > was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical > > linguistics! > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss > wrote: > > > > > David, > > > A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back > to > > > the sensory "ground" of concepts. > > > > > > I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its > > > relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" > > > > > > Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this > > > question] > > > > > > "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of > > > real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance > > with > > > Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what > > makes a > > > human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If > > it > > > is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is > > > materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" > > > > > > "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the > > answer > > > is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of > > the > > > symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and > > > "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. > > > > > > I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" > > and > > > Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's > the > > > > wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, > > > they > > > > must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > > > > captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > > > > > > > > Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. > > Romeo > > > > hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > > > > > > > > Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > > > > Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > > > > Dont le chant a frappe > > > > Ton orielle inquiete > > > > > > > > (No, it is not the day > > > > That is not the lark > > > > Whose song has struck > > > > Your sleepless ear) > > > > > > > > But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > > > > > > > > C'est le doux rossignol > > > > Confidant d'amour! > > > > > > > > (It's the sweet nightengale > > > > The confidant of love!) > > > > > > > > And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to > > > reverse > > > > roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with > Juliette's > > > idea > > > > and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes > > that > > > > you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le > jour...." > > > > > > > > All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth > > > century > > > > they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds > > come > > > in > > > > precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is > > an > > > > electric alarm clock. > > > > > > > > Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm > clocks > > > than > > > > in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; > > > they > > > > heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we > hear > > it > > > > as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and > the > > > > alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > > > > > > > > Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > > > > GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that > > > > MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way > > (hierarchically) > > > > when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > > > > experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are > > > > related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and > > > > processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to > > > match > > > > the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary > > and > > > > so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > > > > > > > > It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find > > that > > > > there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help > > the > > > > young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian > animals > > > to > > > > teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > > > > > > > > moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > > > > > > > > With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the > first > > > like > > > > a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and > > "beaver" > > > > the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while > > beavers > > > > are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow > > > alliterates > > > > with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > > > > pineapple-pig. > > > > > > > > Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But > > all > > > of > > > > them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an > > artefact > > > > down through history. > > > > > > > > If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the > > > > opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo > > dies > > > > before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, > > she > > > > awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he > > > > remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed > > > > it...2:31:00. > > > > > > > > "No, it is not the day > > > > That is not the lark... > > > > It's the sweet nightengale > > > > The confidant of love!" > > > > > > > > Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment > that > > > poor > > > > Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before > > he > > > > kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > > > > demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single > sound > > > has > > > > the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a > > > digital > > > > alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 4 17:15:36 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:15:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David- I have been meaning to ask relative to the Gounod, the lark and the artifacts, how you understand the term, ideological. Webster's online dictionary, for example, provides two definitions - relating to or concerned with ideas of, relating to, or based on ideology which only pushes the question back and doesn't much help with interpreting your use of the term. (My question is clearly related to my long term interest in artifacts and cultural mediation. From your followup message, I suspect that both definitions animate your observations). mike On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > A propos the problem of violence in social change, which is an expression > of man's persistent inability to organize, that is, re-organize her social > relations in an expedient and rational way. > > Last night we were discussing why people take so long to kill in > Shakespeare. It's not just Hamlet: in the Tempest we have one of those > palindromes (you know, sentences that can be read forwards and backwards, > like "Madam I'm Adam" or "Was it a car or a cat I saw?"). Or rather, we > have a set of nested plots, like the sort of thing that Chinese parents > tell children who nag for a story: > > Once upon a time there was a mountain. > On the mountain was a temple. > In the temple was a monk. > The monk was telling a story: > "Once upon a time there was a mountain..." > > So in the Tempest you have a voyage from Tunis interrupted by a plot > interrupted by another plot interrupted by a love story interrupted by the > last plot interrupted by the penultimate plot interrupted by the return > voyage to Naples, and the whole folds up like a butterfly's wings or an > hourglass (see also David Mitchell's novel, The Cloud Atlas, and the movie > of the same name). > > When you read the Tempest, though, the interruptions seem perfectly > natural, because nobody ever just thinks of a murder and then goes and does > it; instead they spend a good hundred lines talking over whether or not it > will work, until, of course, it simply can't, because there's no time left. > The same thing is true in Chinese opera--an actor who contemplates suicide > must count on doing so for at least an hour, and sometimes for the better > part of two or three, at the very limit of his or her vocal range. > > It seems to me that the explanation for the procrastination of murders in > Shakespeare is, once again, the ideological footprint of material > artifacts. It is one thing to pull a trigger or to flip a switch and have > your enemy disappear forever without a trace. It's very different when you > actually have to cut and slice human flesh with a knife which may not be of > the sharpest. In Shakespeare's time they had to take murder much more > seriously than we do; one of the things that may have contributed to the > fact that American cops kill, on the average, two people a day, is that > they carry weapons with hair triggers, designed to squeeze off multiple > rounds with little effort. > > Virginia Woolf thought that World War One would have been quite impossible > had both sides simply had the imagination to see how much the enemy's life > must mean to him or her. Some artifacts (e.g. "Mrs. Dalloway" or "To the > Lighthouse") throw this vision into warm and brilliant light and make it > indelibly our own. But other artifacts, even more surely, obscure it with a > long dark shadow until it's too late. > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, > but > > Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in > > referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge > > of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by > > the followers of Rubenshtein. > > > > mike > > > > PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Larry: > > > > > > So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and > choose > > > to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! > > > > > > Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error > > of > > > taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of > > the > > > RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing > > > some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of > > the > > > criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling > > > ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") > > > > > > I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's > already > > > pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an > > > "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or > die. > > > They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and > sometimes > > > even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window > > > sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live > > in. > > > > > > It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized > > > by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, > > the > > > second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery > shopping, I > > > don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the > > > same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy > > > says, the "environment" has to include an element of human > consciousness, > > > of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with > seventy-five > > > million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be > > idealism, > > > make the most of it! > > > > > > There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently > > > (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by > > > the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt > > to > > > link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really > WAS > > an > > > idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years > old! > > > But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian > > > Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one > > of > > > the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but > > > have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of > > whether > > > Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only > > > symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception > of > > > the players--are flesh and blood). > > > > > > Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the > Symbolists > > > into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both > chaotic, > > > organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course > that's > > > correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by > > > which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that > it > > > was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical > > > linguistics! > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss > > wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail > back > > to > > > > the sensory "ground" of concepts. > > > > > > > > I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its > > > > relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" > > > > > > > > Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this > > > > question] > > > > > > > > "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem > of > > > > real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in > accordance > > > with > > > > Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what > > > makes a > > > > human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? > If > > > it > > > > is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is > > > > materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" > > > > > > > > "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the > > > answer > > > > is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration > of > > > the > > > > symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and > > > > "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. > > > > > > > > I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and > Education" > > > and > > > > Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. > > > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's > > the > > > > > wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm > clock, > > > > they > > > > > must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > > > > > captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > > > > > > > > > > Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. > > > Romeo > > > > > hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > > > > > > > > > > Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > > > > > Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > > > > > Dont le chant a frappe > > > > > Ton orielle inquiete > > > > > > > > > > (No, it is not the day > > > > > That is not the lark > > > > > Whose song has struck > > > > > Your sleepless ear) > > > > > > > > > > But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > > > > > > > > > > C'est le doux rossignol > > > > > Confidant d'amour! > > > > > > > > > > (It's the sweet nightengale > > > > > The confidant of love!) > > > > > > > > > > And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to > > > > reverse > > > > > roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with > > Juliette's > > > > idea > > > > > and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes > > > that > > > > > you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le > > jour...." > > > > > > > > > > All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth > > > > century > > > > > they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds > > > come > > > > in > > > > > precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, > is > > > an > > > > > electric alarm clock. > > > > > > > > > > Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm > > clocks > > > > than > > > > > in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of > artifacts; > > > > they > > > > > heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we > > hear > > > it > > > > > as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and > > the > > > > > alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > > > > > > > > > > Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > > > > > GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, > that > > > > > MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way > > > (hierarchically) > > > > > when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > > > > > experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS > are > > > > > related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants > and > > > > > processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able > to > > > > match > > > > > the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems > arbitrary > > > and > > > > > so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > > > > > > > > > > It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you > find > > > that > > > > > there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must > help > > > the > > > > > young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian > > animals > > > > to > > > > > teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > > > > > > > > > > moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > > > > > > > > > > With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the > > first > > > > like > > > > > a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and > > > "beaver" > > > > > the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while > > > beavers > > > > > are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow > > > > alliterates > > > > > with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > > > > > pineapple-pig. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. > But > > > all > > > > of > > > > > them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an > > > artefact > > > > > down through history. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of > the > > > > > opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo > > > dies > > > > > before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the > poison, > > > she > > > > > awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until > he > > > > > remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you > guessed > > > > > it...2:31:00. > > > > > > > > > > "No, it is not the day > > > > > That is not the lark... > > > > > It's the sweet nightengale > > > > > The confidant of love!" > > > > > > > > > > Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment > > that > > > > poor > > > > > Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose > before > > > he > > > > > kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > > > > > demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single > > sound > > > > has > > > > > the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a > > > > digital > > > > > alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at > night. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 17:46:29 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 18:46:29 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> This is late in the game, so forgive me, but: Appropos David re: Saussure, my understanding is that sometime towards the end of the 19th Century linguistics shifted its focus from the diachronic (historical, longitudinal) to the synchronic (in a single point of time) study of language. Apparently actual violence during meettings of linguists over such things as an original language resulted in making historical linguistics a taboo subject. Hence, Saussure?s sin, as David describes it: >> "Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the Symbolists >> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both chaotic, >> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that it >> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical linguistics!? He threw the baby out with the bath water. Chomsky topped that by making a single language a sufficient basis for getting at what makes language tick and keep on ticking. (He could have included Hebrew in his writing, which he knew a lot about through his father.) Leaving out BOTH forms of variation, diachronic and synchronic, leaves out a lot, if you?re trying to understand development of language, either ontogentically or phylogenetically. Regarding what a symbol is, Saussure seems to have pushed l?arbitraire du signe to its limit, that is the assumed arbitrary relationship between the phonological (sound) and semantic (meaning) ?poles? of symbols. (I take it that any symbol is the unit formed by the pairing of a phonological and sematic element. If I read Vygotsky right, he used ?WORD? to capture this pairing. Let me be clear that by the phonological, I mean strings of language sounds from the shortest to longest: phoneme, morpheme, clause, poem, etc.) Langacker is one of many who use the umbrella term ?iconicity? to capture the ways in which the material form of a language, its "structure in sound" so to speak, is anything BUT arbitrary. From Wikipedia: "In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity is the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness.? From this definition, iconicity is anything about the form of language that is not arbitrary. This would include onomatopeia, but would also include a looser sound symbolism, deixis or pointing, and what the prototypical sign (sound) where there is no obvious connection between sound and meaning, but where the choices made by a language community in how they express themselves are influenced by factors internal to the language and culture (e.g., the great vowel shift in the history of English) AND language/culture contact (witness the massive borrowing into English from other languages and the influence of English on other languages). Henry > On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:02 PM, mike cole wrote: > > David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, but > Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in > referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge > of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by > the followers of Rubenshtein. > > mike > > PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Dear Larry: >> >> So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and choose >> to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! >> >> Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error of >> taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of the >> RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing >> some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of the >> criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling >> ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") >> >> I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already >> pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an >> "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. >> They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and sometimes >> even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window >> sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live in. >> >> It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized >> by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, the >> second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, I >> don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the >> same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy >> says, the "environment" has to include an element of human consciousness, >> of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five >> million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be idealism, >> make the most of it! >> >> There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently >> (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by >> the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt to >> link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really WAS an >> idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years old! >> But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian >> Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one of >> the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but >> have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of whether >> Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only >> symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of >> the players--are flesh and blood). >> >> Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the Symbolists >> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both chaotic, >> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that it >> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical >> linguistics! >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss wrote: >> >>> David, >>> A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back to >>> the sensory "ground" of concepts. >>> >>> I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its >>> relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" >>> >>> Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this >>> question] >>> >>> "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of >>> real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance >> with >>> Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what >> makes a >>> human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If >> it >>> is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is >>> materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" >>> >>> "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the >> answer >>> is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of >> the >>> symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and >>> "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. >>> >>> I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" >> and >>> Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. >>> >>> Larry >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's the >>>> wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, >>> they >>>> must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be >>>> captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. >>>> >>>> Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. >> Romeo >>>> hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: >>>> >>>> Non, ce n'est pas le jour. >>>> Ce n'est pas l'allouette. >>>> Dont le chant a frappe >>>> Ton orielle inquiete >>>> >>>> (No, it is not the day >>>> That is not the lark >>>> Whose song has struck >>>> Your sleepless ear) >>>> >>>> But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: >>>> >>>> C'est le doux rossignol >>>> Confidant d'amour! >>>> >>>> (It's the sweet nightengale >>>> The confidant of love!) >>>> >>>> And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to >>> reverse >>>> roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's >>> idea >>>> and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes >> that >>>> you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le jour...." >>>> >>>> All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth >>> century >>>> they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds >> come >>> in >>>> precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is >> an >>>> electric alarm clock. >>>> >>>> Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks >>> than >>>> in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; >>> they >>>> heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear >> it >>>> as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and the >>>> alarm is designed to mimick a lark? >>>> >>>> Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are >>>> GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that >>>> MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way >> (hierarchically) >>>> when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, >>>> experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are >>>> related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and >>>> processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to >>> match >>>> the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary >> and >>>> so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. >>>> >>>> It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find >> that >>>> there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help >> the >>>> young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian animals >>> to >>>> teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: >>>> >>>> moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine >>>> >>>> With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first >>> like >>>> a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and >> "beaver" >>>> the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while >> beavers >>>> are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow >>> alliterates >>>> with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, >>>> pineapple-pig. >>>> >>>> Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But >> all >>> of >>>> them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an >> artefact >>>> down through history. >>>> >>>> If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the >>>> opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo >> dies >>>> before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, >> she >>>> awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he >>>> remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed >>>> it...2:31:00. >>>> >>>> "No, it is not the day >>>> That is not the lark... >>>> It's the sweet nightengale >>>> The confidant of love!" >>>> >>>> Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that >>> poor >>>> Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before >> he >>>> kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw >>>> demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound >>> has >>>> the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a >>> digital >>>> alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 20:51:33 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:51:33 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henry, Mike: The word "ideology" casts a very long shadow! I think that Saussure's notion of "l'arbitraire" is better understood in English as the "conventional". In Korean, by the way, it has the idea of "volitional", that is, something under human control. So the patterns of meaning that we find (e.g. the relationship between "ideal" and "ideology") are conventional; they are under human control by means of conventions and institutions, but they are not random in any sense (as Vygotsky says, you can't call a pigeon a "blackbird" without doing serious violence to the meaning of the word "black"). So, to uptake Mike's dictionary definition, the meaning of "ideology" has come to mean socio-political assumptions or world view of a disagreeable nature. This ideological shadow is certainly conventional, and it is certainly not arbitrary--it has been carefully engineered by generations of cold warriors and has now been taken over by a party which conventionally calls itself "democratic", to hurl at a party which calls itself, quite randomly, "republican". But to me the word "ideology" only means what it meant to Volosinov: it is the study of ideas, and the study of the ideal in material life, i.e. of signs and their effects on social and psychological life. When we teach Korean children "science", we begin with a field of study called "wise life". This then becomes differentiated into "natural science" on the one hand "social studies" on the other. Only in middle school will the children differentiate natural science into chemistry, physics, and biology (and social studies will be differentiated into social studies proper and ethics). These distinctions are, of course, as thoroughly conventional as the distinction between sociology and psychology, or the distinction between vocabulary and grammar. Imagine, instead of "wise life" or "natural science" or even science, we had evolved something called "matter-ology", a field which studies matter in all of its forms: physical, biological, socio-cultural, and semiotic. Within "matterology", we might distinguish a science of matter that in some way indicates, suggests, represents or "stands for" other matter (other phenomena), or other matters (megaphenomena) or other matters of fact (metaphenomena). That's semiology, or as Volosinov would say, "ideology". David Kellogg On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > This is late in the game, so forgive me, but: > > Appropos David re: Saussure, my understanding is that sometime towards the > end of the 19th Century linguistics shifted its focus from the diachronic > (historical, longitudinal) to the synchronic (in a single point of time) > study of language. Apparently actual violence during meettings of linguists > over such things as an original language resulted in making historical > linguistics a taboo subject. Hence, Saussure?s sin, as David describes it: > > >> "Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the > Symbolists > >> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both > chaotic, > >> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's > >> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by > >> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that > it > >> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical > linguistics!? > > He threw the baby out with the bath water. Chomsky topped that by making a > single language a sufficient basis for getting at what makes language tick > and keep on ticking. (He could have included Hebrew in his writing, which > he knew a lot about through his father.) Leaving out BOTH forms of > variation, diachronic and synchronic, leaves out a lot, if you?re trying to > understand development of language, either ontogentically or > phylogenetically. > > Regarding what a symbol is, Saussure seems to have pushed l?arbitraire du > signe to its limit, that is the assumed arbitrary relationship between the > phonological (sound) and semantic (meaning) ?poles? of symbols. (I take it > that any symbol is the unit formed by the pairing of a phonological and > sematic element. If I read Vygotsky right, he used ?WORD? to capture this > pairing. Let me be clear that by the phonological, I mean strings of > language sounds from the shortest to longest: phoneme, morpheme, clause, > poem, etc.) Langacker is one of many who use the umbrella term ?iconicity? > to capture the ways in which the material form of a language, its > "structure in sound" so to speak, is anything BUT arbitrary. > > From Wikipedia: > "In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity > is the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign > (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness.? > > From this definition, iconicity is anything about the form of language > that is not arbitrary. This would include onomatopeia, but would also > include a looser sound symbolism, deixis or pointing, and what the > prototypical sign (sound) where there is no obvious connection between > sound and meaning, but where the choices made by a language community in > how they express themselves are influenced by factors internal to the > language and culture (e.g., the great vowel shift in the history of > English) AND language/culture contact (witness the massive borrowing into > English from other languages and the influence of English on other > languages). > > Henry > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:02 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, > but > > Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in > > referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge > > of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by > > the followers of Rubenshtein. > > > > mike > > > > PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >> Dear Larry: > >> > >> So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and > choose > >> to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! > >> > >> Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error > of > >> taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of > the > >> RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing > >> some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of > the > >> criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling > >> ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") > >> > >> I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already > >> pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an > >> "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. > >> They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and > sometimes > >> even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window > >> sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live > in. > >> > >> It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized > >> by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, > the > >> second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, > I > >> don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the > >> same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy > >> says, the "environment" has to include an element of human > consciousness, > >> of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five > >> million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be > idealism, > >> make the most of it! > >> > >> There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently > >> (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by > >> the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt > to > >> link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really > WAS an > >> idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years > old! > >> But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian > >> Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one > of > >> the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but > >> have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of > whether > >> Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only > >> symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of > >> the players--are flesh and blood). > >> > >> Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the > Symbolists > >> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both > chaotic, > >> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's > >> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by > >> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that > it > >> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical > >> linguistics! > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss > wrote: > >> > >>> David, > >>> A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back > to > >>> the sensory "ground" of concepts. > >>> > >>> I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its > >>> relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" > >>> > >>> Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this > >>> question] > >>> > >>> "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of > >>> real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance > >> with > >>> Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what > >> makes a > >>> human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If > >> it > >>> is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is > >>> materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" > >>> > >>> "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the > >> answer > >>> is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of > >> the > >>> symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and > >>> "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. > >>> > >>> I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" > >> and > >>> Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. > >>> > >>> Larry > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's > the > >>>> wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, > >>> they > >>>> must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be > >>>> captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. > >>>> > >>>> Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. > >> Romeo > >>>> hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: > >>>> > >>>> Non, ce n'est pas le jour. > >>>> Ce n'est pas l'allouette. > >>>> Dont le chant a frappe > >>>> Ton orielle inquiete > >>>> > >>>> (No, it is not the day > >>>> That is not the lark > >>>> Whose song has struck > >>>> Your sleepless ear) > >>>> > >>>> But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: > >>>> > >>>> C'est le doux rossignol > >>>> Confidant d'amour! > >>>> > >>>> (It's the sweet nightengale > >>>> The confidant of love!) > >>>> > >>>> And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to > >>> reverse > >>>> roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's > >>> idea > >>>> and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes > >> that > >>>> you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le > jour...." > >>>> > >>>> All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth > >>> century > >>>> they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds > >> come > >>> in > >>>> precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is > >> an > >>>> electric alarm clock. > >>>> > >>>> Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks > >>> than > >>>> in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; > >>> they > >>>> heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear > >> it > >>>> as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and > the > >>>> alarm is designed to mimick a lark? > >>>> > >>>> Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are > >>>> GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that > >>>> MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way > >> (hierarchically) > >>>> when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, > >>>> experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are > >>>> related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and > >>>> processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to > >>> match > >>>> the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary > >> and > >>>> so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. > >>>> > >>>> It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find > >> that > >>>> there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help > >> the > >>>> young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian > animals > >>> to > >>>> teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: > >>>> > >>>> moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine > >>>> > >>>> With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first > >>> like > >>>> a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and > >> "beaver" > >>>> the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while > >> beavers > >>>> are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow > >>> alliterates > >>>> with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, > >>>> pineapple-pig. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But > >> all > >>> of > >>>> them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an > >> artefact > >>>> down through history. > >>>> > >>>> If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the > >>>> opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo > >> dies > >>>> before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, > >> she > >>>> awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he > >>>> remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed > >>>> it...2:31:00. > >>>> > >>>> "No, it is not the day > >>>> That is not the lark... > >>>> It's the sweet nightengale > >>>> The confidant of love!" > >>>> > >>>> Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that > >>> poor > >>>> Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before > >> he > >>>> kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw > >>>> demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound > >>> has > >>>> the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a > >>> digital > >>>> alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jun 4 21:24:59 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:24:59 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/06/2015 1:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Henry, Mike: > > The word "ideology" casts a very long shadow! I think that Saussure's > notion of "l'arbitraire" is better understood in English as the > "conventional". In Korean, by the way, it has the idea of "volitional", > that is, something under human control. So the patterns of meaning that we > find (e.g. the relationship between "ideal" and "ideology") are > conventional; they are under human control by means of conventions and > institutions, but they are not random in any sense (as Vygotsky says, you > can't call a pigeon a "blackbird" without doing serious violence to the > meaning of the word "black"). > > So, to uptake Mike's dictionary definition, the meaning of "ideology" has > come to mean socio-political assumptions or world view of a disagreeable > nature. This ideological shadow is certainly conventional, and it is > certainly not arbitrary--it has been carefully engineered by generations of > cold warriors and has now been taken over by a party which conventionally > calls itself "democratic", to hurl at a party which calls itself, quite > randomly, "republican". But to me the word "ideology" only means what it > meant to Volosinov: it is the study of ideas, and the study of the ideal in > material life, i.e. of signs and their effects on social and psychological > life. > > When we teach Korean children "science", we begin with a field of study > called "wise life". This then becomes differentiated into "natural science" > on the one hand "social studies" on the other. Only in middle school will > the children differentiate natural science into chemistry, physics, and > biology (and social studies will be differentiated into social studies > proper and ethics). These distinctions are, of course, as thoroughly > conventional as the distinction between sociology and psychology, or the > distinction between vocabulary and grammar. > > Imagine, instead of "wise life" or "natural science" or even science, we > had evolved something called "matter-ology", a field which studies matter > in all of its forms: physical, biological, socio-cultural, and semiotic. > Within "matterology", we might distinguish a science of matter that in some > way indicates, suggests, represents or "stands for" other matter (other > phenomena), or other matters (megaphenomena) or other matters of fact > (metaphenomena). That's semiology, or as Volosinov would say, "ideology". > > David Kellogg > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> This is late in the game, so forgive me, but: >> >> Appropos David re: Saussure, my understanding is that sometime towards the >> end of the 19th Century linguistics shifted its focus from the diachronic >> (historical, longitudinal) to the synchronic (in a single point of time) >> study of language. Apparently actual violence during meettings of linguists >> over such things as an original language resulted in making historical >> linguistics a taboo subject. Hence, Saussure?s sin, as David describes it: >> >>>> "Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the >> Symbolists >>>> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both >> chaotic, >>>> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >>>> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >>>> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that >> it >>>> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical >> linguistics!? >> >> He threw the baby out with the bath water. Chomsky topped that by making a >> single language a sufficient basis for getting at what makes language tick >> and keep on ticking. (He could have included Hebrew in his writing, which >> he knew a lot about through his father.) Leaving out BOTH forms of >> variation, diachronic and synchronic, leaves out a lot, if you?re trying to >> understand development of language, either ontogentically or >> phylogenetically. >> >> Regarding what a symbol is, Saussure seems to have pushed l?arbitraire du >> signe to its limit, that is the assumed arbitrary relationship between the >> phonological (sound) and semantic (meaning) ?poles? of symbols. (I take it >> that any symbol is the unit formed by the pairing of a phonological and >> sematic element. If I read Vygotsky right, he used ?WORD? to capture this >> pairing. Let me be clear that by the phonological, I mean strings of >> language sounds from the shortest to longest: phoneme, morpheme, clause, >> poem, etc.) Langacker is one of many who use the umbrella term ?iconicity? >> to capture the ways in which the material form of a language, its >> "structure in sound" so to speak, is anything BUT arbitrary. >> >> From Wikipedia: >> "In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity >> is the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign >> (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness.? >> >> From this definition, iconicity is anything about the form of language >> that is not arbitrary. This would include onomatopeia, but would also >> include a looser sound symbolism, deixis or pointing, and what the >> prototypical sign (sound) where there is no obvious connection between >> sound and meaning, but where the choices made by a language community in >> how they express themselves are influenced by factors internal to the >> language and culture (e.g., the great vowel shift in the history of >> English) AND language/culture contact (witness the massive borrowing into >> English from other languages and the influence of English on other >> languages). >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:02 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, >> but >>> Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in >>> referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge >>> of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by >>> the followers of Rubenshtein. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>> Dear Larry: >>>> >>>> So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and >> choose >>>> to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! >>>> >>>> Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error >> of >>>> taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of >> the >>>> RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing >>>> some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of >> the >>>> criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling >>>> ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") >>>> >>>> I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already >>>> pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an >>>> "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. >>>> They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and >> sometimes >>>> even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window >>>> sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live >> in. >>>> It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized >>>> by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, >> the >>>> second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, >> I >>>> don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the >>>> same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy >>>> says, the "environment" has to include an element of human >> consciousness, >>>> of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five >>>> million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be >> idealism, >>>> make the most of it! >>>> >>>> There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently >>>> (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by >>>> the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt >> to >>>> link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really >> WAS an >>>> idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years >> old! >>>> But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian >>>> Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one >> of >>>> the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but >>>> have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of >> whether >>>> Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only >>>> symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of >>>> the players--are flesh and blood). >>>> >>>> Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the >> Symbolists >>>> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both >> chaotic, >>>> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >>>> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >>>> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that >> it >>>> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical >>>> linguistics! >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss >> wrote: >>>>> David, >>>>> A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back >> to >>>>> the sensory "ground" of concepts. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its >>>>> relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" >>>>> >>>>> Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this >>>>> question] >>>>> >>>>> "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of >>>>> real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance >>>> with >>>>> Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what >>>> makes a >>>>> human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If >>>> it >>>>> is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is >>>>> materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" >>>>> >>>>> "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the >>>> answer >>>>> is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of >>>> the >>>>> symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and >>>>> "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. >>>>> >>>>> I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" >>>> and >>>>> Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. >>>>> >>>>> Larry >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's >> the >>>>>> wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, >>>>> they >>>>>> must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be >>>>>> captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. >>>> Romeo >>>>>> hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: >>>>>> >>>>>> Non, ce n'est pas le jour. >>>>>> Ce n'est pas l'allouette. >>>>>> Dont le chant a frappe >>>>>> Ton orielle inquiete >>>>>> >>>>>> (No, it is not the day >>>>>> That is not the lark >>>>>> Whose song has struck >>>>>> Your sleepless ear) >>>>>> >>>>>> But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: >>>>>> >>>>>> C'est le doux rossignol >>>>>> Confidant d'amour! >>>>>> >>>>>> (It's the sweet nightengale >>>>>> The confidant of love!) >>>>>> >>>>>> And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to >>>>> reverse >>>>>> roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's >>>>> idea >>>>>> and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes >>>> that >>>>>> you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le >> jour...." >>>>>> All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth >>>>> century >>>>>> they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds >>>> come >>>>> in >>>>>> precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is >>>> an >>>>>> electric alarm clock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks >>>>> than >>>>>> in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; >>>>> they >>>>>> heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear >>>> it >>>>>> as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and >> the >>>>>> alarm is designed to mimick a lark? >>>>>> >>>>>> Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are >>>>>> GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that >>>>>> MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way >>>> (hierarchically) >>>>>> when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, >>>>>> experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are >>>>>> related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and >>>>>> processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to >>>>> match >>>>>> the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary >>>> and >>>>>> so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. >>>>>> >>>>>> It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find >>>> that >>>>>> there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help >>>> the >>>>>> young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian >> animals >>>>> to >>>>>> teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: >>>>>> >>>>>> moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine >>>>>> >>>>>> With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first >>>>> like >>>>>> a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and >>>> "beaver" >>>>>> the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while >>>> beavers >>>>>> are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow >>>>> alliterates >>>>>> with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, >>>>>> pineapple-pig. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But >>>> all >>>>> of >>>>>> them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an >>>> artefact >>>>>> down through history. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the >>>>>> opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo >>>> dies >>>>>> before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, >>>> she >>>>>> awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he >>>>>> remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed >>>>>> it...2:31:00. >>>>>> >>>>>> "No, it is not the day >>>>>> That is not the lark... >>>>>> It's the sweet nightengale >>>>>> The confidant of love!" >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that >>>>> poor >>>>>> Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before >>>> he >>>>>> kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw >>>>>> demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound >>>>> has >>>>>> the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a >>>>> digital >>>>>> alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> > From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 22:22:47 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 23:22:47 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> Message-ID: <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> I remember the use of the term IDEAL in a thread on the development of Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL). The big question was whether NSL was developed almost ex nihilo in a single generation or required an actual model of the language available to NSL learners, in the same way that learners of English have a model that has developed over the course of generations. I think the consensus was that the quickness of the development of NSL has been overblown. I have a friend who is a specialist in signed languages who agrees with this. I agree with David that the term CONVENTIONAL, as opposed to ARBITRARY or RANDOM, does a much better job of capturing the nature of language. This is not only because concepts, meanings, develop over time, historically, but also because there is a connection between the way the material world actually works, and how we conventionally describe it in a given language. But a symbol is not the pariing of sound and the object in the world, but between the sound and the concept of the thing in the world. There?s room for creativity, in addition to convention. It seems to me that Andy, with a little link, is making the point that David may be stretching the meaning of IDEOLOGY too far beyond its conventional bounds for the discussion we are having. But David is a smart guy, and language is not only conventional but creative. Perhaps I am misinterpreting or misconstruing the issues, but it seems to me that this sort of negotiation of meaning is at the heart of informed and ethical dialog and narrative. I hope, at least, that I am being coherent. Henry > On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology > andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 5/06/2015 1:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> Henry, Mike: >> >> The word "ideology" casts a very long shadow! I think that Saussure's >> notion of "l'arbitraire" is better understood in English as the >> "conventional". In Korean, by the way, it has the idea of "volitional", >> that is, something under human control. So the patterns of meaning that we >> find (e.g. the relationship between "ideal" and "ideology") are >> conventional; they are under human control by means of conventions and >> institutions, but they are not random in any sense (as Vygotsky says, you >> can't call a pigeon a "blackbird" without doing serious violence to the >> meaning of the word "black"). >> >> So, to uptake Mike's dictionary definition, the meaning of "ideology" has >> come to mean socio-political assumptions or world view of a disagreeable >> nature. This ideological shadow is certainly conventional, and it is >> certainly not arbitrary--it has been carefully engineered by generations of >> cold warriors and has now been taken over by a party which conventionally >> calls itself "democratic", to hurl at a party which calls itself, quite >> randomly, "republican". But to me the word "ideology" only means what it >> meant to Volosinov: it is the study of ideas, and the study of the ideal in >> material life, i.e. of signs and their effects on social and psychological >> life. >> >> When we teach Korean children "science", we begin with a field of study >> called "wise life". This then becomes differentiated into "natural science" >> on the one hand "social studies" on the other. Only in middle school will >> the children differentiate natural science into chemistry, physics, and >> biology (and social studies will be differentiated into social studies >> proper and ethics). These distinctions are, of course, as thoroughly >> conventional as the distinction between sociology and psychology, or the >> distinction between vocabulary and grammar. >> >> Imagine, instead of "wise life" or "natural science" or even science, we >> had evolved something called "matter-ology", a field which studies matter >> in all of its forms: physical, biological, socio-cultural, and semiotic. >> Within "matterology", we might distinguish a science of matter that in some >> way indicates, suggests, represents or "stands for" other matter (other >> phenomena), or other matters (megaphenomena) or other matters of fact >> (metaphenomena). That's semiology, or as Volosinov would say, "ideology". >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >>> This is late in the game, so forgive me, but: >>> >>> Appropos David re: Saussure, my understanding is that sometime towards the >>> end of the 19th Century linguistics shifted its focus from the diachronic >>> (historical, longitudinal) to the synchronic (in a single point of time) >>> study of language. Apparently actual violence during meettings of linguists >>> over such things as an original language resulted in making historical >>> linguistics a taboo subject. Hence, Saussure?s sin, as David describes it: >>> >>>>> "Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the >>> Symbolists >>>>> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both >>> chaotic, >>>>> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >>>>> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >>>>> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that >>> it >>>>> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical >>> linguistics!? >>> >>> He threw the baby out with the bath water. Chomsky topped that by making a >>> single language a sufficient basis for getting at what makes language tick >>> and keep on ticking. (He could have included Hebrew in his writing, which >>> he knew a lot about through his father.) Leaving out BOTH forms of >>> variation, diachronic and synchronic, leaves out a lot, if you?re trying to >>> understand development of language, either ontogentically or >>> phylogenetically. >>> >>> Regarding what a symbol is, Saussure seems to have pushed l?arbitraire du >>> signe to its limit, that is the assumed arbitrary relationship between the >>> phonological (sound) and semantic (meaning) ?poles? of symbols. (I take it >>> that any symbol is the unit formed by the pairing of a phonological and >>> sematic element. If I read Vygotsky right, he used ?WORD? to capture this >>> pairing. Let me be clear that by the phonological, I mean strings of >>> language sounds from the shortest to longest: phoneme, morpheme, clause, >>> poem, etc.) Langacker is one of many who use the umbrella term ?iconicity? >>> to capture the ways in which the material form of a language, its >>> "structure in sound" so to speak, is anything BUT arbitrary. >>> >>> From Wikipedia: >>> "In functional-cognitive linguistics, as well as in semiotics, iconicity >>> is the conceived similarity or analogy between the form of a sign >>> (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness.? >>> >>> From this definition, iconicity is anything about the form of language >>> that is not arbitrary. This would include onomatopeia, but would also >>> include a looser sound symbolism, deixis or pointing, and what the >>> prototypical sign (sound) where there is no obvious connection between >>> sound and meaning, but where the choices made by a language community in >>> how they express themselves are influenced by factors internal to the >>> language and culture (e.g., the great vowel shift in the history of >>> English) AND language/culture contact (witness the massive borrowing into >>> English from other languages and the influence of English on other >>> languages). >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:02 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> David- I do not have Jan's book, so cannot judge your comments overall, >>> but >>>> Zinchenko was almost certainly referring to Leontiev, not Vygotsky, in >>>> referring to the theory of activity and repeating the oft-repeated charge >>>> of "sign-o-centricism" versus "behaviorism" leveled against him, large by >>>> the followers of Rubenshtein. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> PS- Perhaps Jan can find a moment to comment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>>>> Dear Larry: >>>>> >>>>> So Zinchenko says that if I go on a journey through the desert and >>> choose >>>>> to take a map instead of an ice-axe I am being an idealist! >>>>> >>>>> Of course, I know that by choosing an ice-axe, I am confusing the error >>> of >>>>> taking a tool instead of a symbol with taking the WRONG tool instead of >>> the >>>>> RIGHT symbol. But I also think that by choosing an ice-axe I am drawing >>>>> some attention to the underlying dishonesty--the demagogy--of a lot of >>> the >>>>> criticisms made of Vygotsky--how they are reducible to name-calling >>>>> ("Idealist!" "Subjectivist!" "Word-Fetishist!") >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the real problem with Zinchenko is the one that Andy's already >>>>> pointed to. What makes humans human is that they don't live in an >>>>> "environment" that is oblivious to them to which they must adapt or die. >>>>> They have the ability to make the environment adapt to them and >>> sometimes >>>>> even die--as I am reminded by the potted plant withering on my window >>>>> sill. Our nature is really not the same as the nature that animals live >>> in. >>>>> It's quite literally a "human' nature; a society is nature humanized >>>>> by consciousness. Beyond the ficus dying on my window sill lies Seoul, >>> the >>>>> second largest city on earth. When I go out and do my grocery shopping, >>> I >>>>> don't take a tool or even a map; I take a mind full of symbols, and the >>>>> same thing is true when I go out to "earn" my daily bread. So, as Andy >>>>> says, the "environment" has to include an element of human >>> consciousness, >>>>> of my consciousness and the consciousness I must share with seventy-five >>>>> million other Koreans every time I use a Korean word. If this be >>> idealism, >>>>> make the most of it! >>>>> >>>>> There was a good review of my book in the journal "System" recently >>>>> (attached). When I got over the warm feeling brought about by >>>>> the (apparently heartfelt) praise, I felt slightly irked by the attempt >>> to >>>>> link Vygotsky's reading of Hamlet with that of Florensky, who really >>> WAS an >>>>> idealist. Florensky's "Hamlet" came out when Vygotsky was nine years >>> old! >>>>> But of course the author is right--Florensky, later a priest, a Russian >>>>> Orthodox theologian, and ultimately a victim of Stalin's goons, was one >>> of >>>>> the founders of the Symbolist movement, and Vygotsky could not help but >>>>> have felt his long cool shadow as he wrestled with the question of >>> whether >>>>> Hamlet is a psycho-drama (and all the characters but Hamlet are only >>>>> symbols) or a socio-drama (and all the characters--with the exception of >>>>> the players--are flesh and blood). >>>>> >>>>> Saussure, who did more than anyone to make the insights of the >>> Symbolists >>>>> into a coherent world view, said that thought and language, both >>> chaotic, >>>>> organize each other through decomposing each other, and of course that's >>>>> correct. Saussure's big mistake was to turn his back on the process by >>>>> which this happens. And the strangest thing about this mistake is that >>> it >>>>> was the very process in which he'd made his own career--historical >>>>> linguistics! >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Larry Purss >>> wrote: >>>>>> David, >>>>>> A fascinating way to explore the long shadow that concepts entail back >>> to >>>>>> the sensory "ground" of concepts. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to ask how you situate a third term "symbol" in its >>>>>> relationship to the "sensory sound" and the "conceptual" >>>>>> >>>>>> Zinchenko offers one approach to symbols [to prime the pumps of this >>>>>> question] >>>>>> >>>>>> "The psychological theory of activity was concerned with the problem of >>>>>> real [i.e. concrete] tools and objects that humans, also in accordance >>>>> with >>>>>> Marxism, place between themselves and nature. In other words, what >>>>> makes a >>>>>> human human? Symbol or thing? The crucifix or the hammer and sickle? If >>>>> it >>>>>> is the symbol then this is idealism. If it is the thing then this is >>>>>> materialism or perhaps dialectical materialism" >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reading" this question through your response above I wonder if the >>>>> answer >>>>>> is unfinalizable and may depend on the "reciprocal" interpenetration of >>>>> the >>>>>> symbolic and sensory. I am assuming the symbolic as "figurative" and >>>>>> "con/figurative" phenomena that expresses co-existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am Reading Jan Derry's 2013 book "Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education" >>>>> and >>>>>> Zinchenko's quote is on page 14. >>>>>> >>>>>> Larry >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The other day I was listening to Gounod's "Romeo et Juliette". It's >>> the >>>>>>> wedding night, and they got to bed. Because they have no alarm clock, >>>>>> they >>>>>>> must listen carefully for the sound of the lark, else Romeo will be >>>>>>> captured by the guards of Verona and hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Romeo is sleeping with one ear open, and he is the first to awake. >>>>> Romeo >>>>>>> hears a bird and tells Juliette, and Juliette replies: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Non, ce n'est pas le jour. >>>>>>> Ce n'est pas l'allouette. >>>>>>> Dont le chant a frappe >>>>>>> Ton orielle inquiete >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (No, it is not the day >>>>>>> That is not the lark >>>>>>> Whose song has struck >>>>>>> Your sleepless ear) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But of course the song persists. Juliette reassures him: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C'est le doux rossignol >>>>>>> Confidant d'amour! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (It's the sweet nightengale >>>>>>> The confidant of love!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And Romeo decides, for probably just for the sake of being able to >>>>>> reverse >>>>>>> roles and sing the song himself, that he will go along with Juliette's >>>>>> idea >>>>>>> and go back to sleep. So then Juliette hears the sound and realizes >>>>> that >>>>>>> you must leave, helas! And Romeo sings, "Non, ce n'est pas le >>> jour...." >>>>>>> All of which reminded me of the crucial fact that in the sixteenth >>>>>> century >>>>>>> they did not yet have alarm clocks. But when you hear the woodwinds >>>>> come >>>>>> in >>>>>>> precisely at 1:47:35, what you hear, if you are a modern listener, is >>>>> an >>>>>>> electric alarm clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now of course, in Gounod's time they no more had electric alarm clocks >>>>>> than >>>>>>> in Shakespeare's. But such is the ideological footprint of artifacts; >>>>>> they >>>>>>> heard the sound of the woodwinds as that of a nightengale, and we hear >>>>> it >>>>>>> as battery powered alarm clock. Or is it the other way around, and >>> the >>>>>>> alarm is designed to mimick a lark? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Last night we were working on ways of teaching vocabulary which are >>>>>>> GENERALIZABLE. It is of course the case, as Vygotsky points out, that >>>>>>> MEANINGS can be related easily to each other, in one way >>>>> (hierarchically) >>>>>>> when we teach scientific concepts and in another (sensually, >>>>>>> experientially) when we are not. It's also true that the WORDINGS are >>>>>>> related easily toe ach other, as nouns and verbs, as participants and >>>>>>> processes, and as circumstances. But what kids want are to be able to >>>>>> match >>>>>>> the soundings and the imagery. In most languages this seems arbitrary >>>>> and >>>>>>> so vocabulary seems a piecemeal affair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It isn't. As Vygotsky points out, when you go back in time, you find >>>>> that >>>>>>> there are (at least) three kinds of associative links which must help >>>>> the >>>>>>> young vocabulary learner. We had the following list of Canadian >>> animals >>>>>> to >>>>>>> teach brought in by a hakweon teacher from Canada: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> moose, goose, badger, beaver, eagle, porcupine >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With "moose" and "goose' the link is sounding--try bellowing the first >>>>>> like >>>>>>> a moose, and hooting the second like a goose. With "badger" and >>>>> "beaver" >>>>>>> the link is wording--badgers badger grubs and bother birds, while >>>>> beavers >>>>>>> are always beavering around with dams and nests. Eagle somehow >>>>>> alliterates >>>>>>> with "eye" and "spy", and "porcupine" suggests a piney, spiney, >>>>>>> pineapple-pig. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, none of these are concepts. All are forms of complex. But >>>>> all >>>>>> of >>>>>>> them are the ideological footprint, the long shadow, cast by an >>>>> artefact >>>>>>> down through history. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to hear the lark, you will have to wait to the end of the >>>>>>> opera, where it takes on another meaning. As everybody knows, Romeo >>>>> dies >>>>>>> before Juliet awakes. But in Gounod's version, he drinks the poison, >>>>> she >>>>>>> awakes, and they are once again joyful in each other's arms, until he >>>>>>> remembers the poison (a minor detail!) and dies singing...you guessed >>>>>>> it...2:31:00. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "No, it is not the day >>>>>>> That is not the lark... >>>>>>> It's the sweet nightengale >>>>>>> The confidant of love!" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it's absurd (although not quite as absurd as the moment that >>>>>> poor >>>>>>> Rolando Villazon has to wipe the sweat off the end of his nose before >>>>> he >>>>>>> kisses Nina Machaidze). But it's also somewhat terrifying, as a raw >>>>>>> demonstrating of the ideological footprint of artworks. A single sound >>>>>> has >>>>>>> the power to be a bird in one century, a piccolo in another, and a >>>>>> digital >>>>>>> alarm clock in our own. Artifacts cast a long shadow, even at night. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNULK87lK0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>> >> > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jun 5 07:03:03 2015 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:03:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. Best wishes, Lubomir From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 07:12:45 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:12:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5571AE5D.8080905@mira.net> But one would have to add Lubomir, that in the instance where the person's social position reflects universal interests, then the relevant ideology has the same universal content. So though "ideology" is invariably used in a pejorative sense, this is not necessarily the case. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:03 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jun 5 07:19:49 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:19:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts Hello everyone, A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. Best wishes, Lubomir From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 07:24:47 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:24:47 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5571B12F.4080701@mira.net> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm#method "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel?s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell." Marx, Afterword to the 2nd German Edition of Capital Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jun 5 07:25:55 2015 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:25:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571AE5D.8080905@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <5571AE5D.8080905@mira.net> Message-ID: Thank you Andy, I agree with you. "Ideology" refers to a particular social phenomenon and should not be used in pejorative sense. Particular ideologies can be immoral or moral, etc. On a different note, there is no way that a person's social position reflects universal interest and that the ensuing ideology has universal content. Even altruists see only their side and do not want to accept the positions of their adversaries. In the realm of ideology there is no right and wrong, there is only utility/success in defending the economic position. By the way, that is why the concept of political correctness doesn't make sense. What is politically correct for one party is incorrect for the other party. The concept of politically correct (ideology) is yet another way to defend or obtain desired socioeconomic positions. We can see this in history. Bolshevik ideology was the most politically correct ideology in the world and was enforced with a system of labor camps. Now there are calls to equate it with national socialist ideology, which itself was proclaimed as the only politically correct at its heydays. Lubomir -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:13 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts But one would have to add Lubomir, that in the instance where the person's social position reflects universal interests, then the relevant ideology has the same universal content. So though "ideology" is invariably used in a pejorative sense, this is not necessarily the case. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:03 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Fri Jun 5 07:28:50 2015 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the excuse to use my N-Gram Viewer once again Michael and everyone. Check this out. It groups books within these years too: 1800 - 1949 1950 - 1987 1988 - 1991 1992 - 1995 1996 - 2000 ideology https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+ideology&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0 *Robert L.* On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago > with a student we found the term emerged right after the French > revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the > populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the > political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a > number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this > group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision > of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract > ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues > were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back > over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people > often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able > to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let > me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time > and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to > develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually > flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in > ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that > it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals > and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In > that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a > desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a > system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision > making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect > the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, > professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group P. O. Box 8144 Phone: (912) 478-0355 Fax: (912) 478-5382 Statesboro, GA 30460 *He not busy being born is busy dying.* Bob Dylan (1964). From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 07:30:32 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:30:32 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," etc.) Is it really all relative?? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Jun 5 07:31:28 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:31:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571B12F.4080701@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B12F.4080701@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE63B@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Thanks Andy. I've been trying to find that a long time. Did he write this before or after his writing on the French revolution? I just wonder because he uses the same metaphor, standing on its head and flipping them back over. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:25 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm#method "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel?s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell." Marx, Afterword to the 2nd German Edition of Capital Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 07:33:38 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:33:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE63B@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B12F.4080701@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE63B@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5571B342.1080707@mira.net> That was written in 1873. His writings on the French Revolution ... I'm not sure what you mean ... the famous "18th Brumaire" of 1852, or his writings on the Paris Commune of the 1870s. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:31 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Thanks Andy. I've been trying to find that a long time. Did he write this before or after his writing on the French revolution? I just wonder because he uses the same metaphor, standing on its head and flipping them back over. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:25 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm#method > > "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel?s > hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to > present its general form of working in a comprehensive > and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its > head. It must be turned right side up again, if you > would discover the rational kernel within the mystical > shell." > > Marx, Afterword to the 2nd German Edition of Capital > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> >> From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Fri Jun 5 07:34:16 2015 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Another interesting word to plot. is "dialectic". https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dialectic&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdialectic%3B%2Cc0 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Lake wrote: > Thanks for the excuse to use my N-Gram Viewer once again Michael and > everyone. > Check this out. It groups books within these years too: > 1800 - 1949 > 1950 > - 1987 > 1988 > - 1991 > 1992 > - 1995 > 1996 > - 2000 > > ideology > > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+ideology&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0 > > *Robert L.* > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago >> with a student we found the term emerged right after the French >> revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the >> populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the >> political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a >> number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this >> group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision >> of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract >> ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues >> were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back >> over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people >> often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able >> to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let >> me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the >> time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to >> develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually >> flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in >> ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >> Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight >> that it is a system for defending the social position/status that >> individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is >> derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or >> obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a >> system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision >> making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect >> the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, >> professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > P. O. Box 8144 > Phone: (912) 478-0355 > Fax: (912) 478-5382 > Statesboro, GA 30460 > *He not busy being born is busy dying.* > Bob Dylan (1964). > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group P. O. Box 8144 Phone: (912) 478-0355 Fax: (912) 478-5382 Statesboro, GA 30460 *He not busy being born is busy dying.* Bob Dylan (1964). From cconnery@ithaca.edu Fri Jun 5 07:38:15 2015 From: cconnery@ithaca.edu (Cathrene Connery) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:38:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> , Message-ID: Whoa....that is an interesting trajectory! Hasta, Cathrene Dr. Cathrene Connery Associate Professor of Education Ithaca College Department of Education 194B Phillips Hall Annex 953 Danby Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Cconnery@ithaca.edu On Jun 5, 2015, at 10:36 AM, "Robert Lake" wrote: > Another interesting word to plot. is "dialectic". > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dialectic&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdialectic%3B%2Cc0 > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Lake > wrote: > >> Thanks for the excuse to use my N-Gram Viewer once again Michael and >> everyone. >> Check this out. It groups books within these years too: >> 1800 - 1949 >> 1950 >> - 1987 >> 1988 >> - 1991 >> 1992 >> - 1995 >> 1996 >> - 2000 >> >> ideology >> >> >> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+ideology&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cideology%3B%2Cc0 >> >> *Robert L.* >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> >>> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago >>> with a student we found the term emerged right after the French >>> revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the >>> populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the >>> political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a >>> number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this >>> group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision >>> of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract >>> ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues >>> were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back >>> over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people >>> often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able >>> to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let >>> me know). >>> >>> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the >>> time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to >>> develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually >>> flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in >>> ideology since Jefferson's return. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >>> Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight >>> that it is a system for defending the social position/status that >>> individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is >>> derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or >>> obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >>> >>> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a >>> system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision >>> making. >>> >>> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect >>> the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, >>> professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Lubomir >> >> >> -- >> Robert Lake Ed.D. >> Associate Professor >> Social Foundations of Education >> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading >> Georgia Southern University >> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group >> P. O. Box 8144 >> Phone: (912) 478-0355 >> Fax: (912) 478-5382 >> Statesboro, GA 30460 >> *He not busy being born is busy dying.* >> Bob Dylan (1964). > > > -- > Robert Lake Ed.D. > Associate Professor > Social Foundations of Education > Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading > Georgia Southern University > Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group > P. O. Box 8144 > Phone: (912) 478-0355 > Fax: (912) 478-5382 > Statesboro, GA 30460 > *He not busy being born is busy dying.* > Bob Dylan (1964). From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jun 5 07:43:52 2015 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:43:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi Andy, Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," etc.) Is it really all relative?? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 07:51:11 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:51:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> Message-ID: <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how people use the word "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir? You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore good science cannot be ideological, only bad science. Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David uses the word, ideology is a system of ideas, and science most certainly is a system of ideas, and also characteristic of a certain social strata or institution, but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc. :) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). > > In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. > > There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). > > Best wishes, > > Lubo > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," > etc.) Is it really all relative?? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jun 5 08:02:29 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:02:29 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> Message-ID: So in David's use of the term, Andy, the ideological shadow of an artifact is the shadow of the system of ideas that it casts/embodies/affords...?? mike On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how people use the word > "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir? > You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore good science cannot > be ideological, only bad science. > Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David uses the word, > ideology is a system of ideas, and science most certainly is a system of > ideas, and also characteristic of a certain social strata or institution, > but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc. > > :) > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of >> society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of >> principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in >> order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). >> >> In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It >> becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it >> is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this >> doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that >> the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced >> by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik >> ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of >> the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social >> realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in >> totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and >> to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological >> constructions in disguise. >> >> There is a major difference between science and ideology as social >> institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or >> the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our >> socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use >> science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. >> If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a >> dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred >> million in and around two world wars). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy >> Blunden >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of >> nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. >> Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the >> interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have >> within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but >> "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," >> etc.) Is it really all relative?? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago >>> with a student we found the term emerged right after the French >>> revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the >>> populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the >>> political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a >>> number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this >>> group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision >>> of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract >>> ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues >>> were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back >>> over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people >>> often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able >>> to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let >>> me know). >>> >>> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the >>> time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to >>> develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually >>> flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in >>> ideology since Jefferson's return. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight >>> that it is a system for defending the social position/status that >>> individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is >>> derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or >>> obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >>> >>> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a >>> system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision >>> making. >>> >>> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way >>> affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of >>> course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Lubomir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jun 5 08:03:06 2015 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:03:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi Andy, Thank you for the challenges? In this case, I am not talking about the use of the word ideology, I am talking about the nature of ideology in the political and social realms. People use the word in many different ways, and define the phenomenon in many different ways. Ideology is an institution, a system of ideas, guiding principles, etc., many things. I will stop short now of a full treatise on this topic. In the professional realms ideology is used in a very different ways. The most important implication is that the professional ideology is a system of ideas that might or may not be based on science. Just guiding principles that a person has endorsed, assimilated, and started to use. Good science should not be ideological because the two institutions are incompatible. They have different functions in society. Both institutions develop ideas, but the purposes and the methods are completely different. The fact that both institutions develop ideas doesn?t tell us much. Literature also develops ideas, as well as mythology and folklore. But they are neither science nor ideologies. Lubo From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:51 AM To: Lubomir Savov Popov; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how people use the word "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir? You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore good science cannot be ideological, only bad science. Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David uses the word, ideology is a system of ideas, and science most certainly is a system of ideas, and also characteristic of a certain social strata or institution, but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc. :) Andy ________________________________ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: Hi Andy, Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," etc.) Is it really all relative?? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts Hello everyone, A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. Best wishes, Lubomir From ablunden@mira.net Fri Jun 5 08:05:50 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:05:50 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> Message-ID: <5571BACE.2090603@mira.net> I think that's just a little too poetic for me, Mike. I couldn't say. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/06/2015 1:02 AM, mike cole wrote: > So in David's use of the term, Andy, the ideological > shadow of an artifact is the shadow of the system of ideas > that it casts/embodies/affords...?? > > mike > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how > people use the word "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir? > You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore > good science cannot be ideological, only bad science. > Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David > uses the word, ideology is a system of ideas, and > science most certainly is a system of ideas, and also > characteristic of a certain social strata or > institution, but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc. > > :) > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Ideologies might include laws of nature (including > the social nature of society) but this is not a > requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles > or ideas that justify political talk, action, and > behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger > piece of the pie (put it simply). > > In this case, the natural science law by itself is > not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is > included in the body of an ideology, when it is > appropriated by a group of people to serve their > objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law > ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the > discovery or formulation of a natural science law > might be influenced by political ideology. This is > a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology > influenced the discovery of the principle of the > leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me > if this this is a real law in the social realm or > an ideological construct. Certain social > "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian > countries claimed to be based on science and to be > scientific laws of nature, but in effect these > were ideological constructions in disguise. > > There is a major difference between science and > ideology as social institutions. The goal of > science is to understand the world as it is (or > the closest approximation); the goal of ideology > is to defend our socioeconomic position at any > rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or > might pretend to be using science, which is most > often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if > we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that > can kill billions of people (so far only a few > hundred million in and around two world wars). > > Best wishes, > > Lubo > > -----Original Message----- > From: > xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov > =bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On Behalf Of > Andy Blunden > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of > Artifacts > > So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist > formulates a law of nature which stands up to the > test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it > surely is ideological, but would you claim that it > reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and > maybe other biologists) and does not have within > it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or > universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a > basis in universal experience," > etc.) Is it really all relative?? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > I don't know if this helps but in researching > this term a few years ago with a student we > found the term emerged right after the French > revolution. Instead of basing a social system > on the activities of the populace and building > up from these there was a movement to base the > political system on a set of ideals. This was > disparaged I guess by a number of the more > intense revolutionaries and they began to call > this group of idealists ideologues - leading > to the idea of basing your vision of > government (or expanded to almost anything) in > a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was > Marx who remarked that these French ideologues > were walking on their heads - the goal of > Marxists was to flip them back over so they > are walking on their feet again (I believe > this is what people often confuse as Marx > flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been > able to find a quote that backs that up. If > anybody does know of it please let me know). > > Interestingly side note is that Thomas > Jefferson was in France at the time and > brought back the idea of ideology to the > United States wanting to develop a system > based on ideology and not practice. The > French eventually flipped over a few times, > but in the United States we have been mired in > ideology since Jefferson's return. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: > xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman > =ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] > On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological > Footprint of Artifacts > > Hello everyone, > > A core definition of ideology in the political > sense should highlight that it is a system for > defending the social position/status that > individuals and groups acquire in the economic > process. All the rest is derivative. In that > light, politics is also an instrument for > defending or obtaining a desired position in > the socio-economic process. > > In the professions, the word/term ideology is > often used to denote a system of general > believes and principles that drive > professional decision making. > > Political ideologies affect design decision > making and in that way affect the organization > of artifact functions and morphology. And of > course, professional ideologies drive this > process overtly. > > Best wishes, > > Lubomir > > > > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > something > that isn't even visible. N.McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Jun 5 09:23:11 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:23:11 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> Message-ID: <4542477F-4C3E-4602-B16D-FD4C96991F4D@gmail.com> Lubo says, "The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation)?" Back in my undergraduate days, a prof asserted that science was absolutely skeptical, not claiming truth, the way things REALLY are. At best science posits models/hypotheses/theories about how the world works, tests the success of those models on the basis of confirmation or disconfirmation of those models of the world through prediction and measurement. For example, for science the model of our solar system as geocentric (earth centered) or heliocentric (sun centered) is not about whether it is REALLY one or the other but about the predictions we can make based on one or the other. Turns out the heliocentric model is much easier to work and is much more successful in making predictions. Jump forward to the ?climate wars? and charges from the right that Concerned Scientists who ?believe? in climate change and human agency in that change are ideologues. It has occurred to me that skeptical science can be used to support those charges. I wonder what Marx would have said. Isn?t the dialectic fundamentally skeptical as well? Henry > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). > > In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. > > There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). > > Best wishes, > > Lubo > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," > etc.) Is it really all relative?? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> >> > > From lspopov@bgsu.edu Fri Jun 5 09:52:58 2015 From: lspopov@bgsu.edu (Lubomir Savov Popov) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:52:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <4542477F-4C3E-4602-B16D-FD4C96991F4D@gmail.com> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <4542477F-4C3E-4602-B16D-FD4C96991F4D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Henry, In Dialectical and Historical Materialist gnoseology, there is truth, but it is not absolutely possible to attain. We always strive to reach that truth, but at the same time, we never manage to do that. So, it is pretty common that every scientific fact is only the last but one in a long thread of discoveries. Everything that we conditionally accept as true today might be refuted tomorrow and a new fact or discovery will take its place. There is support for such a position in history of science. Best wishes, Lubo -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:23 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts Lubo says, "The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation)?" Back in my undergraduate days, a prof asserted that science was absolutely skeptical, not claiming truth, the way things REALLY are. At best science posits models/hypotheses/theories about how the world works, tests the success of those models on the basis of confirmation or disconfirmation of those models of the world through prediction and measurement. For example, for science the model of our solar system as geocentric (earth centered) or heliocentric (sun centered) is not about whether it is REALLY one or the other but about the predictions we can make based on one or the other. Turns out the heliocentric model is much easier to work and is much more successful in making predictions. Jump forward to the ?climate wars? and charges from the right that Concerned Scientists who ?believe? in climate change and human agency in that change are ideologues. It has occurred to me that skeptical science can be used to support those charges. I wonder what Marx would have said. Isn?t the dialectic fundamentally skeptical as well? Henry > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). > > In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. > > There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). > > Best wishes, > > Lubo > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts > > So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," > etc.) Is it really all relative?? > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution. Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals. This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up. If anybody does know of it please let me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice. The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> >> > > From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Jun 5 11:31:47 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <4542477F-4C3E-4602-B16D-FD4C96991F4D@gmail.com>, Message-ID: It occurred to me that there is a dialogical manifestation here emerging (or...merging?) on this list on the fracturing/converging notions of ideology, which may be, on a sunny day, themselves ideologies of ideologies! I am of the ideology that science is not a rendering of pure truth, but through acts of discovery, a rendering of human knowledge of the world as it is (objective knowledge out there, but perhaps as yet unknown to humans, women and men alike), as we have found it so far, and how we have been able to explain it. These explanations cannot be articulated without cultural practices, as scientists not only work in labs (as depicted in the rendering of Dr. Frankenstein, mad, and unbalanced), but they work in the world (in acts of describing as Darwin did, a naturalist), and they also work together (when forming scientific communities of practice, either by discipline or by schools of thought (and why we say "school"). Oddly I've been reading Feyerebend lately, who has been called the Enemy of Science, but I think not, as much of what he said, ends up to have developed into the way scientists think about themselves and of sciences. That apparently he was something of a fortune teller who was dismissed summarily, as many renegades of thought tend to be treated (ad hominum). It made me wonder if the word "ideology" (and its friendly adjective counterpart, "ideological") is something like the knife. A knife can be useful for cutting a rope of bondage, whittling to pass the time, or retrieving a slice from a loaf of bread. But it can also be used as a weapon, to harm another person, or in the abstract, groups of others to stab, dismember, alienate, and, that nice clich?, mince words. Perhaps a clich? is an ideology that has become far too conventional that it makes us groan, if you are groaning, but I think it's more about the pun, an puns always cause groaning, or maybe "growning." Of course, to continue with my metaphor, to cut someone's heart out is an act of violence, when done with a knife. But then a surgeon is still doing a greater good if he plans to transplant a heart to save the dying patient, never sure if the patient will survive the surgery on the table or the operation overall. So it seems to be a matter of context and also motivation or intention how one *should* use the word itself. But then maybe the identification of *should* is that shadow that David means. That from the inside of the ideology, the *should* means "why wouldn't you do it any other way?" Whereas from the outside of the ideology the *should* is taken as an authoritarian missive meaning, "you should to this?or else." Even on a cloudy day the sun does shine, and if not for the sun we couldn't see the clouds, even if we can't see the sun, unless it is night, of course, where there are no shadows, unless of course there is moonlight! On that happy note of exceptions, Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 7 14:36:12 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:36:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts In-Reply-To: <5571BACE.2090603@mira.net> References: <26C53280-4AE8-4274-9C59-A7A60AC29574@gmail.com> <5571249B.5020609@mira.net> <35593F67-6D43-4E32-9FBE-693B6F194D18@gmail.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE60C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5571B288.8050304@mira.net> <5571B75F.8000706@mira.net> <5571BACE.2090603@mira.net> Message-ID: When Vygotsky talks about the game of chess (in the lectures on play and elsewhere), he remarks that every instance of imaginary play contains abstract rules, and that every game of abstract rules contains an imaginary situation. I think it's very easy to interpret this in a way that Andy might call poetic: we imagine that the game of chess is a simulation of war, that the rooks are castles of Camelot, the horses are mounted knights like Launcelot and Gawain, and the King and Queen are Arthur and Guinevere. (The Chinese version of chess--"elephant chess"--has a blank space between the two armies, which is not a DMZ but rather meant to be the River Chu, which once divided the warring kingdoms of Han and Chu before the establishment of the Qin Empire, and of course instead of knights the Chinese use elephants, instead of the king, a "general", and instead of a rook, a "cannon".) When you go back into the cultural history of the game, this is undoubtedly what you find (just as when you go back far enough into the cultural history of virtually any word you find very concrete, or "poetic" imagery: "dialectic" means "dialogue", and "ideology" means "idea-word".) Nevertheless, I am sure that is NOT what Vygotsky meant. The "imaginary situation" he refers to in the game of chess is not a long shadow cast by history but a real, concrete way in which a flesh-and-blood child has to learn the game. Vygotsky means that the child has to pretend that it is ONLY possible for the pawn to move one square. It is, of course, physically possible for the child to move the pawn any number of squares. But the child has to make believe that this is physically impossible. The same is true of the diagonal movement of the bishop, the rows and columns accessible to the rook, and the crooked jumps of the knights. This purely imaginary restriction is what gives rise to the concepts of "taking" and above all "covering" pieces that Vygotsky is interested in, because these concepts are the rudiments of the conditional logic that transforms chess into what Von Neumann describes as a form of calculation. Similarly, I think that when Vygotsky says that every instance of make-believe contains abstract rules, he doesn't simply mean that when children play "House" there is an abstract rule that says that Daddy must read the newspaper and cannot cook, while Mommy must cook and cannot read the newspaper (though of course such rules do exist--I remember one of my students describing in great detail the rules of a game called "Jeong Yuk Jeom", or "Butcher Shop", which she and her friends had worked out when she lived upstairs from a butcher shop--the rules for the unlucky child who had to play the piece of meat were particularly exacting). I think that what Vygotsky really means is that the words "attack" and "defense" applied to chess (or, for that matter, soccer) do not simply imply a poetic metaphor. They also imply abstract rules (and, once again, the concepts of "taking" and "covering", which are pure chess concepts). David Kellogg On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > I think that's just a little too poetic for me, Mike. I couldn't say. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/06/2015 1:02 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> So in David's use of the term, Andy, the ideological shadow of an >> artifact is the shadow of the system of ideas that it >> casts/embodies/affords...?? >> >> mike >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how >> people use the word "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir? >> You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore >> good science cannot be ideological, only bad science. >> Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David >> uses the word, ideology is a system of ideas, and >> science most certainly is a system of ideas, and also >> characteristic of a certain social strata or >> institution, but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc. >> >> :) >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> Ideologies might include laws of nature (including >> the social nature of society) but this is not a >> requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles >> or ideas that justify political talk, action, and >> behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger >> piece of the pie (put it simply). >> >> In this case, the natural science law by itself is >> not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is >> included in the body of an ideology, when it is >> appropriated by a group of people to serve their >> objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law >> ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the >> discovery or formulation of a natural science law >> might be influenced by political ideology. This is >> a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology >> influenced the discovery of the principle of the >> leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me >> if this this is a real law in the social realm or >> an ideological construct. Certain social >> "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian >> countries claimed to be based on science and to be >> scientific laws of nature, but in effect these >> were ideological constructions in disguise. >> >> There is a major difference between science and >> ideology as social institutions. The goal of >> science is to understand the world as it is (or >> the closest approximation); the goal of ideology >> is to defend our socioeconomic position at any >> rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or >> might pretend to be using science, which is most >> often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if >> we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that >> can kill billions of people (so far only a few >> hundred million in and around two world wars). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov >> =bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] On Behalf Of >> Andy Blunden >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of >> Artifacts >> >> So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist >> formulates a law of nature which stands up to the >> test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it >> surely is ideological, but would you claim that it >> reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and >> maybe other biologists) and does not have within >> it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or >> universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a >> basis in universal experience," >> etc.) Is it really all relative?? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >> I don't know if this helps but in researching >> this term a few years ago with a student we >> found the term emerged right after the French >> revolution. Instead of basing a social system >> on the activities of the populace and building >> up from these there was a movement to base the >> political system on a set of ideals. This was >> disparaged I guess by a number of the more >> intense revolutionaries and they began to call >> this group of idealists ideologues - leading >> to the idea of basing your vision of >> government (or expanded to almost anything) in >> a set of abstract ideals. I believe it was >> Marx who remarked that these French ideologues >> were walking on their heads - the goal of >> Marxists was to flip them back over so they >> are walking on their feet again (I believe >> this is what people often confuse as Marx >> flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been >> able to find a quote that backs that up. If >> anybody does know of it please let me know). >> >> Interestingly side note is that Thomas >> Jefferson was in France at the time and >> brought back the idea of ideology to the >> United States wanting to develop a system >> based on ideology and not practice. The >> French eventually flipped over a few times, >> but in the United States we have been mired in >> ideology since Jefferson's return. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman >> = >> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] >> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological >> Footprint of Artifacts >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> A core definition of ideology in the political >> sense should highlight that it is a system for >> defending the social position/status that >> individuals and groups acquire in the economic >> process. All the rest is derivative. In that >> light, politics is also an instrument for >> defending or obtaining a desired position in >> the socio-economic process. >> >> In the professions, the word/term ideology is >> often used to denote a system of general >> believes and principles that drive >> professional decision making. >> >> Political ideologies affect design decision >> making and in that way affect the organization >> of artifact functions and morphology. And of >> course, professional ideologies drive this >> process overtly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lubomir >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >> that isn't even visible. N.McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> >> >> >> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Jun 8 06:18:15 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:18:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, Daniel, As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. Michael wrote: "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than supports our mission" This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought provoking: "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to do with making meaningful connections happen" I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek them [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS A THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" but with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for such meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and "created". The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the individual imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions that "run through" THEMES. "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post on "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by NECESSITY within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality and duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event time that are LINKED. Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making meaning connections happen. I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional time and space which is the more common sense experience of "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are invisible in the background while the progressions are expressed in the foregoround AND * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" or "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that "show up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic expressions happening in the "moment". WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these various pro-gressions [in time and space]? I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and not mere cacophony. Larry On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman wrote: > Hi, Michael - > > Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I > think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. > > Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels between > music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an experience, > hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, skill, > refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of value. > And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to > understanding and enjoyment. > > The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the > music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond the > idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of wine, of > all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same industrial > network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for white, > I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's > concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for classical > music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any > classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. > > That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) in > their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in his B > Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while > great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to > consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George Gershwin's > "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church > composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned > counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if not > millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having > meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally > constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to > sample the connections described in the article. But these music > distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems > pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. > > So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to do > with making meaningful connections happen. > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, > > > > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down what > > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That often > > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research > > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a theme. > I > > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really > > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already exists > and > > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing > > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they > > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If you > > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord > progression > > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes > the > > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I have > > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was > > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or > > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much of > > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of > the > > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking > > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. > How > > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal > forces > > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet and > the > > choices it places directly in the hands of users. > > > > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the > last > > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new (or > > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on > this > > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I can > > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's et. > > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original 2001 > > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm > > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a Cliff > > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be > > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are > > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding the > > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." > > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when > > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound that > > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. > > > > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on Spottify > > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill of > > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web > (forgive > > the pun)? How do we navigate it? > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to see > > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty > questions > > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or parsing > > them out would be much appreciated. > > > > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from a > > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It > intersperses > > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, > > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of > > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are > > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do > > glean is more along the following lines: > > > > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, > > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless > > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one > looks > > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and piano/banjo/guitar, > > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those > > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others fit > > into or around. > > > > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, > opera, > > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern > the > > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in churches, > > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to > > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not wholly > > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The > > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. > > > > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / descendants > > are usually considered within that family. > > > > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for > > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and > > performance to performance. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < > > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > > > > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General > > > Systems Theory. > > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a > > > well-developed thought this time, either. > > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the > > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a > > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that > > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out > > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get > > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." > > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael > > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression > of > > chords. > > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, > > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left > > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized > > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > > > > > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > > Glassman, Michael > > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > > > Hi Huw, > > > > > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder > > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw > > > Lloyd > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance > > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that > > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity > > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an > > orientation. > > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se > > > > es > > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click > > > > &p > > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to > > > > p- > > > > news&_r=0 > > > > > > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her > > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media > > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some > > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the > > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways the > > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. > > > > > > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going > > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if > > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely > > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different > > directions. > > > > > > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back > > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. > > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, > > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category > > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries > > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them > > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will > > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers > > > > (using Lewin's original > > > concept) determining what we listen to? > > > > > > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > > > > > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 07:21:11 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:21:11 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I was delighted to read and ponder Larry's comments, and will try to speak to the points I feel most clear on. First, parenthetically: As people likely understand, when musicians say "interpret", the word has a specialized meaning. That is, more the way a builder interprets a blueprint or a chef interprets a recipe. I have studied and applied some of Heinrich Schenker's musical hermeneutics within music theory. These help musicians understand how tonality is heard over the long, immediate, and middle-ground time-scales of a piece. But when I interpreted Bach's cello suite in G last night, it was to imaginatively add color, pacing, line, and articulation to his charts of rhythm and pitch. This thread has worked its way through some impressive semantic thickets, so please howl if I am inadvertently making them any deeper. Objective links between music and time include vibration - anyone playing or singing concert A is making air oscillate 440 (and its multiples) times per second, meter (cycles of numbered beats), rhythm (patterns of stressed / unstressed, short / long sounds), form (recurrence, divergence and adaptation of musical gestures), and stylistic era. It may well be that part of the power of music to arouse and soothe feelings, relates to the great range and depth of our time-scales it can engage. Subjective links include the recall of past hearings / events and their contexts and moods, wishes (fond or embarrassed) for future do-overs, recognition of parallels / quotations / parodies, or the desire to begin to dance, march, or otherwise enact what the music ?suggests?. In this it strongly resembles the flavor of Proust?s madeleine. The threshold of cacophony, whether of ideas or tones, is not a unitary place. Admirers of Stravinsky have had since 1911 to chuckle over this sadly anonymous bit of doggerel: Who wrote this fiendish "Rite of Spring"? What right had he to write the thing? Against our helpless ears to fling Its crash, clash, cling, clang, bing, bang bing? And then to call it "Rite of SPRING," The season when on joyous wing The birds melodious carols sing And harmony's in every thing! He who could write the "Rite of Spring," If I be right by right should swing! (Those with any doubts that such arguments go back centuries, may enjoy Nicholas Slonimsky?s ?Lexicon of Musical Invective.? Some of the most beloved works we now treasure, emerged to very harsh reviews.) Some prefer Mendelssohn, or Nine Inch Nails. Surely this is a matter of personal taste, and one?s expectations of what constitutes listenable complexity versus noise. The question of understanding intent, touches on a lecture I heard Elliott Carter give at Sarah Lawrence in the late 1970s. During the Q&A a baffled woman in the audience asked him the classic question, ?but, Mr. Carter, what does your music mean?? Quite readily he responded, ?if the music had a meaning in words, I would have written an essay instead of a piece.? There is a level of wordless mystery to musical intention that inheres in music itself. That said, the case of the finale of the late Brahms Fourth Symphony, and connections to and within Bach?s early cantata 150, ?Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich? suggests much about both composers? intentions. Briefly, the cantata is in seven sections. The first uses a well-known yearning gesture (also found in Purcell?s ?When I Am Laid In Earth? and numerous earlier works) of a leap up then a slow descent. The last, a set of variations on a repeated bass, uses a text of Christian hope, and turns the gesture upside down, into a leap down then a slow rise. The final chord is in major. Brahms studied, arranged, and edited Bach?s works. In the last movement of his last symphony, also a set of variations on a repeated bass, Brahms clearly speaks of final things. The bass is now a reverse of the longing figure: a slow rise to a leap down. There are many shades of dark moods in the variations, and at times a sense of looking back. A sweet, major-key, pastoral scene unfolds but never resolves, it is clearly cut short. Then the opening minor-key music returns with a fierce energy and a sense of implacable fate. It does resolve, with an almost cruel briskness, but stays in minor. My sense is that Brahms has built on Bach?s practices and symbols, to construct music that speaks and stands on its own. If the listener to the symphony also knows the cantata, there are extra layers of meaning to savor. But Brahms was a realist facing personal mortality, not a believer with hopes in the beyond. So he offered his own message, not that of the music he borrowed and modeled from. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > Michael, Daniel, > > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the theme > of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. Michael > wrote: > > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to maintain > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between Lewin's > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that helped > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than supports > our mission" > > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern perceptions > [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is NECESSARY for the > various "progressions" to proceed. > > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought > provoking: > > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to do > with making meaningful connections happen" > > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek them > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS A > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" but > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. > > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for such > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and > "created". > > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the individual > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions that > "run through" THEMES. > > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. > > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post on > "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by NECESSITY > within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality and > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event time > that are LINKED. > > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and feeling > [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making meaning > connections happen. > > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". > > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - > > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional > time and space which is the more common sense experience of > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are invisible > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the foregoround > > AND > > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" or > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that "show > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic expressions > happening in the "moment". > > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these various > pro-gressions [in time and space]? > > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and not > mere cacophony. > > Larry > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman > wrote: > > > Hi, Michael - > > > > Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I > > think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. > > > > Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels > between > > music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an > experience, > > hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, > skill, > > refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of value. > > And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to > > understanding and enjoyment. > > > > The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the > > music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond > the > > idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of wine, > of > > all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same > industrial > > network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for > white, > > I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's > > concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for classical > > music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any > > classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. > > > > That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) in > > their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in > his B > > Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while > > great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to > > consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George > Gershwin's > > "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church > > composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned > > counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if > not > > millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having > > meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally > > constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to > > sample the connections described in the article. But these music > > distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems > > pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. > > > > So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning > in > > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in > clouds > > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to > do > > with making meaningful connections happen. > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, > > > > > > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down what > > > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That often > > > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research > > > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a theme. > > I > > > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really > > > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already exists > > and > > > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing > > > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they > > > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If > you > > > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord > > progression > > > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes > > the > > > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I have > > > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was > > > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or > > > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much > of > > > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of > > the > > > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking > > > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. > > How > > > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal > > forces > > > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet and > > the > > > choices it places directly in the hands of users. > > > > > > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the > > last > > > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new > (or > > > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on > > this > > > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I > can > > > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's > et. > > > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original 2001 > > > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm > > > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a > Cliff > > > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to > be > > > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are > > > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding > the > > > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." > > > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when > > > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound > that > > > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. > > > > > > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on > Spottify > > > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill > of > > > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web > > (forgive > > > the pun)? How do we navigate it? > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On > > > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman > > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > > > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to > see > > > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty > > questions > > > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or > parsing > > > them out would be much appreciated. > > > > > > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from > a > > > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It > > intersperses > > > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, > > > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of > > > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are > > > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do > > > glean is more along the following lines: > > > > > > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, > > > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless > > > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one > > looks > > > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and > piano/banjo/guitar, > > > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those > > > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others > fit > > > into or around. > > > > > > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, > > opera, > > > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern > > the > > > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in > churches, > > > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to > > > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not > wholly > > > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". > The > > > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. > > > > > > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / > descendants > > > are usually considered within that family. > > > > > > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for > > > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and > > > performance to performance. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < > > > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General > > > > Systems Theory. > > > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a > > > > well-developed thought this time, either. > > > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the > > > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a > > > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that > > > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out > > > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get > > > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." > > > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > > > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > > > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > > > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael > > > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression > > of > > > chords. > > > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > > > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets > up, > > > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > > > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left > > > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized > > > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > > > > > > > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > > Glassman, Michael > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > > > > > Hi Huw, > > > > > > > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder > > > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Huw > > > > Lloyd > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > > > > > > > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance > > > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that > > > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity > > > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an > > > orientation. > > > > > > > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se > > > > > es > > > > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click > > > > > &p > > > > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to > > > > > p- > > > > > news&_r=0 > > > > > > > > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > > > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > > > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her > > > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media > > > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some > > > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the > > > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways > the > > > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can > understand. > > > > > > > > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer > going > > > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if > > > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely > > > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different > > > directions. > > > > > > > > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > > > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > > > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap > back > > > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > > > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. > > > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, > > > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category > > > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries > > > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them > > > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How > will > > > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers > > > > > (using Lewin's original > > > > concept) determining what we listen to? > > > > > > > > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > > > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > > > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > > > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see > > > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > > > > > > > > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 07:55:42 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:55:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Daniel, Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme while remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed" [not merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a traditional theme] THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground, receding to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as "musical hermeneutics" As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING REVEALED and then next becoming synthesized. It seems more like an enveloping movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft. When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE? On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Michael, Daniel, > > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. > Michael wrote: > > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to maintain > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between Lewin's > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that helped > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than supports > our mission" > > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. > > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought > provoking: > > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to do > with making meaningful connections happen" > > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek them > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS A > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" but > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. > > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for such > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and > "created". > > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the individual > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions that > "run through" THEMES. > > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. > > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post on > "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by NECESSITY > within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality and > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event time > that are LINKED. > > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and > feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making > meaning connections happen. > > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". > > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - > > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional > time and space which is the more common sense experience of > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are invisible > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the foregoround > > AND > > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" or > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that "show > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic expressions > happening in the "moment". > > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these various > pro-gressions [in time and space]? > > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and not > mere cacophony. > > Larry > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman > wrote: > >> Hi, Michael - >> >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I >> think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. >> >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels >> between >> music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an >> experience, >> hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, skill, >> refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of value. >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to >> understanding and enjoyment. >> >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the >> music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond >> the >> idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of wine, of >> all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same industrial >> network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for white, >> I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's >> concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for classical >> music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any >> classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. >> >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) in >> their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in his >> B >> Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while >> great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to >> consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George >> Gershwin's >> "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church >> composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned >> counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if >> not >> millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having >> meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally >> constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to >> sample the connections described in the article. But these music >> distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems >> pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. >> >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning in >> them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in clouds >> and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when >> there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people >> with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to >> do >> with making meaningful connections happen. >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, >> > >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down what >> > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That often >> > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research >> > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a >> theme. I >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really >> > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already exists >> and >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing >> > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they >> > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If you >> > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord >> progression >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes >> the >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I have >> > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was >> > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or >> > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much of >> > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of >> the >> > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. >> How >> > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal >> forces >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet and >> the >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users. >> > >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the >> last >> > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new >> (or >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on >> this >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I >> can >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's >> et. >> > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original 2001 >> > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm >> > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a Cliff >> > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be >> > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are >> > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding >> the >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." >> > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but when >> > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound >> that >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. >> > >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on >> Spottify >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill >> of >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web >> (forgive >> > the pun)? How do we navigate it? >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> On >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to >> see >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty >> questions >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or >> parsing >> > them out would be much appreciated. >> > >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught from a >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It >> intersperses >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, gospel, >> > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of >> > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are >> > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do >> > glean is more along the following lines: >> > >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless >> > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one >> looks >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and piano/banjo/guitar, >> > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. Those >> > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others >> fit >> > into or around. >> > >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, >> opera, >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern >> the >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in >> churches, >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen to >> > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not wholly >> > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The >> > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. >> > >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / >> descendants >> > are usually considered within that family. >> > >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous for >> > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and >> > performance to performance. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General >> > > Systems Theory. >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write a >> > > well-developed thought this time, either. >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the >> > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a >> > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that >> > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks out >> > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get >> > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael >> > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the progression >> of >> > chords. >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets up, >> > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? >> > > >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >> Of >> > > Glassman, Michael >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > > >> > > Hi Huw, >> > > >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder >> > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. >> > > >> > > Michael >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw >> > > Lloyd >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > > >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an abeyance >> > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that >> > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity >> > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an >> > orientation. >> > > >> > > Huw >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly interesting >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se >> > > > es >> > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click >> > > > &p >> > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to >> > > > p- >> > > > news&_r=0 >> > > > >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't >> > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her >> > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media >> > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some >> > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the >> > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways the >> > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. >> > > > >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer going >> > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if >> > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened closely >> > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different >> > directions. >> > > > >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my >> > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing >> > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap back >> > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from >> > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, >> > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category >> > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries >> > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them >> > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How will >> > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers >> > > > (using Lewin's original >> > > concept) determining what we listen to? >> > > > >> > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been >> > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict >> > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small >> > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can see >> > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" >> > > > >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. >> > > > >> > > > Michael >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Jun 9 08:12:42 2015 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:12:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCF53F@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Daniel and Larry, Interesting points. So an idea that has been rolling around my head lately. Did the printing press kill story telling - we keep celebrating the printing press as this great thing that made knowledge available to everyone, but did it also stultify it. Music isn't forced into this, or maybe it is I don't know enough, but to me it seems more alive. I really liked Daniel's metaphor of blueprints in playing and I think writing music. You work from them to build, to extend, to create something to meet your needs, but in the end you recognize and acknowledge the role the blue prints played. I wonder if the phrase musical hypertext might be closer to what Daniel is after than musical hermeneutics. When Ted Nelson introduced the concept of hypertext he suggested that it is the original type of human communication pre-dating the printing press. Human used to sit around fires telling stories, never written down, changing with each telling, changing with each generation, changing with each move. There is no ownership - or it belongs to the community with each telling. The Socratic dialogue is as much about being in the world at the moment as it is about questions and answers - always a variation on a theme. What did we lose by allowing people to claim ownership to these things, to claim that they created them, to claim they know what the original author means. To forget that we recreate an idea every time we utter it. But to also maintain connections to those blue prints, recognizing that the utterances are variations on a theme. Well, apologies for the staccato, stream of consciousness structure of this message. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:56 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created Daniel, Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme while remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed" [not merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a traditional theme] THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground, receding to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as "musical hermeneutics" As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING REVEALED and then next becoming synthesized. It seems more like an enveloping movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft. When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE? On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Michael, Daniel, > > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. > Michael wrote: > > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to > maintain these connections, recognize that these are variations on a > theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between Lewin's > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that helped > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than > supports our mission" > > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. > > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought > provoking: > > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and > meaning in them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see > faces in clouds and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek > them out even when there is no original formative intent. As a > musician I feel that people with musical training, sensibility, and > feeling should have something to do with making meaningful connections happen" > > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek > them [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative > INTENT" The question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing > invisible AS A THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple > "progressions" but with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. > > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for > such meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and > "created". > > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the > individual imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern > perceptions that "run through" THEMES. > > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. > > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post > on "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by > NECESSITY within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of > temporality and duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in > the MOMENT event time that are LINKED. > > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and > feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making > meaning connections happen. > > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". > > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - > > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional > time and space which is the more common sense experience of > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are > invisible in the background while the progressions are expressed in > the foregoround > > AND > > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" > or "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative dynamics" > Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that "show up" > and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic > expressions happening in the "moment". > > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these > various pro-gressions [in time and space]? > > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and > not mere cacophony. > > Larry > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman > > wrote: > >> Hi, Michael - >> >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, >> I think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. >> >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels >> between music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's >> an experience, hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, >> origin, context, skill, refinement. Rarity and effort are not >> disadvantages but badges of value. >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to >> understanding and enjoyment. >> >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about >> the music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well >> beyond the idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of >> bottles of wine, of all different origins and levels of quality, >> hooked to the same industrial network of pipes? The consumer opens a >> tap (one for red and one for white, I guess) and has no idea what >> comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's concept of using common >> threads of mood could only be good for classical music, which is >> normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any classical examples >> named in the article, so perhaps not. >> >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) >> in their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" >> in his B Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers >> borrow, while great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop >> genre seems to consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much >> of George Gershwin's "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, >> medieval French church composers overlaid popular tunes with >> liturgical words and learned counterpoint - music has been >> re-emerging in such ways for centuries if not millennia. But such >> expropriations have usually been taken as having meaning and purpose, >> drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally constructed similes >> and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to sample the >> connections described in the article. But these music distributors >> seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems pretty >> random, or at least superficial, to a musician. >> >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and >> meaning in them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see >> faces in clouds and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek >> them out even when there is no original formative intent. As a >> musician I feel that people with musical training, sensibility, and >> feeling should have something to do with making meaningful >> connections happen. >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, >> > >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down >> > what are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. >> > That often times differences between pieces of music, ideas, >> > concept, research methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are >> > variations on a >> theme. I >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are >> > really talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that >> > already exists >> and >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by >> > allowing ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations >> > of ideas they become richer and more easily manipulated in their >> > re-emergence. If you are listening to a pop tune and are then able >> > to tie the chord >> progression >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it >> > makes >> the >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I >> > have been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it >> > was thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership >> > and/or tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will >> > break much of that down because differentiation can so easily be >> > put in the hands of >> the >> > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. >> How >> > much is too much? What is the right balance between the >> > centripetal >> forces >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet >> > and >> the >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users. >> > >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over >> > the >> last >> > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this >> > new >> (or >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people >> > on >> this >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me >> > I >> can >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and >> > Lewin's >> et. >> > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original >> > 2001 article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on >> > Logic (I'm pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article >> > reads like a Cliff notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever >> > reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to maintain these >> > connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that >> > perhaps are made richer by understanding >> the >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." >> > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but >> > when does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of >> > sound >> that >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. >> > >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on >> Spottify >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the >> > thrill >> of >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web >> (forgive >> > the pun)? How do we navigate it? >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.ed >> > u] >> On >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted >> > to >> see >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty >> questions >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or >> parsing >> > them out would be much appreciated. >> > >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught >> > from a >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It >> intersperses >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, >> > gospel, with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a >> > mention of activity structures giving refuge from oppression, >> > though they are generally literate and university- or conservatory- >> > trained. What I do glean is more along the following lines: >> > >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody >> > (unless combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is >> > not). So one >> looks >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and >> > piano/banjo/guitar, for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 >> > chord members at once. Those musicians carry the role of setting >> > the chord progressions the others >> fit >> > into or around. >> > >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, >> opera, >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat >> > govern >> the >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in >> churches, >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. >> > Listen to "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear >> > chromaticism not wholly unlike what Bach did with the simple >> > Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". The tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. >> > >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / >> descendants >> > are usually considered within that family. >> > >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous >> > for one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song >> > and performance to performance. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General >> > > Systems Theory. >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to >> > > write a well-developed thought this time, either. >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of >> > > the work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, >> > > a singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see >> > > that I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it >> > > sticks out like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when >> > > we finally get around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas >> > > Michael starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the >> > > progression >> of >> > chords. >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" >> > > sets up, seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely >> > > specialized >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? >> > > >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >> > > xmca-l-bounces+Behalf >> Of >> > > Glassman, Michael >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > > >> > > Hi Huw, >> > > >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I >> > > wonder if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. >> > > >> > > Michael >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >> > > xmca-l-bounces+Huw >> > > Lloyd >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> > > >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an >> > > abeyance from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive >> > > conditions and that patterns in chord progression would be >> > > derived from that activity structure, not from anything inherent >> > > in the music per se, i.e. an >> > orientation. >> > > >> > > Huw >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly >> > > > interesting >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se >> > > > es >> > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action= >> > > > click >> > > > &p >> > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.n >> > > > av=to >> > > > p- >> > > > news&_r=0 >> > > > >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I >> > > > don't want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of >> > > > her concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the >> > > > media trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for >> > > > some reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but >> > > > the decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the >> > > > ways the Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can understand. >> > > > >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer >> > > > going through different types of music as a stream - I wonder >> > > > though if the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and >> > > > listened closely you would find they shared chord progressions >> > > > taken in different >> > directions. >> > > > >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see >> > > > my daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its >> > > > developing chord progressions, blues has its chord >> > > > progressions, they swap back and forth, rock and folk and new >> > > > wave takes from both and from classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each >> > > > other, something we can never hear when there are strict >> > > > category boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these >> > > > boundaries transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we >> > > > traverse them without thinking we are making some type of >> > > > transgression. How will appreciation of music change when we >> > > > don't have the gatekeepers (using Lewin's original >> > > concept) determining what we listen to? >> > > > >> > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has >> > > > been greater and greater move towards particularization and >> > > > strict boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds >> > > > of small conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down >> > > > so we can see and appreciate the "chord progressions?" >> > > > >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. >> > > > >> > > > Michael >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 08:49:44 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:49:44 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Larry, A pleasure to share ideas about music and how people experience it. I have to think through most of your post, still, but as to Brahms: a classic quote of his, "first ideas are good - they come from God." First ideas were, inherently, not what he published (or ultimately, burned). By the time he had worked through a piece and could present it, what he sent was his work. However, he famously collaborated with colleagues (e.g., Joseph Joachim about the Violin Concerto) and studied the works of forebears in great detail. And his idiom and materials were clearly in the air of his time. His scores, blueprints to use a metaphor instead of a buzzword, were about as intentional as any composer's were, ever. Their contents, syntax, and working-out were part of the shared understanding of his time. By the time the Fourth Symphony was performed, the conductor and players did their own work to make it come alive. So by the time the audience heard it, many people had joined forces to convey it. In that context, I'm not sure what the question about personal ownership really means. It being dinnertime in Kiev, message adjourned for now; be well! On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > Daniel, > Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is > happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are > rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme while > remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression > and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed" [not > merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a > traditional theme] > THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground, receding > to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as > "musical hermeneutics" > > As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of > OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING REVEALED > and then next becoming synthesized. It seems more like an enveloping > movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or > back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing > extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft. > > When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE? > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > > > Michael, Daniel, > > > > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the > > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. > > Michael wrote: > > > > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to > maintain > > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that > > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between > Lewin's > > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that > helped > > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas > > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than > supports > > our mission" > > > > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern > > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is > > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. > > > > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought > > provoking: > > > > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning > in > > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in > clouds > > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to > do > > with making meaningful connections happen" > > > > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek them > > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The > > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS A > > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" > but > > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. > > > > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for such > > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" > > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and > > "created". > > > > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the individual > > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions that > > "run through" THEMES. > > > > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" > > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and > > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that > > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. > > > > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post on > > "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by > NECESSITY > > within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality and > > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event time > > that are LINKED. > > > > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and > > feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making > > meaning connections happen. > > > > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various > > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". > > > > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal > > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - > > > > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional > > time and space which is the more common sense experience of > > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are > invisible > > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the foregoround > > > > AND > > > > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" or > > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative > > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that > "show > > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic > expressions > > happening in the "moment". > > > > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these various > > pro-gressions [in time and space]? > > > > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and > not > > mere cacophony. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman < > daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, Michael - > >> > >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I > >> think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. > >> > >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels > >> between > >> music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an > >> experience, > >> hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, > skill, > >> refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of value. > >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to > >> understanding and enjoyment. > >> > >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the > >> music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond > >> the > >> idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of wine, > of > >> all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same > industrial > >> network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for > white, > >> I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's > >> concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for classical > >> music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any > >> classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. > >> > >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) in > >> their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in > his > >> B > >> Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while > >> great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to > >> consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George > >> Gershwin's > >> "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church > >> composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned > >> counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if > >> not > >> millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having > >> meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally > >> constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to > >> sample the connections described in the article. But these music > >> distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems > >> pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. > >> > >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and meaning > in > >> them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in > clouds > >> and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when > >> there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people > >> with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something to > >> do > >> with making meaningful connections happen. > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, > >> > > >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down > what > >> > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That > often > >> > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research > >> > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a > >> theme. I > >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really > >> > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already > exists > >> and > >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing > >> > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas they > >> > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If > you > >> > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord > >> progression > >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it makes > >> the > >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I > have > >> > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was > >> > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or > >> > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break much > of > >> > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands of > >> the > >> > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking > >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. > >> How > >> > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal > >> forces > >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet > and > >> the > >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users. > >> > > >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the > >> last > >> > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new > >> (or > >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on > >> this > >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I > >> can > >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's > >> et. > >> > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original > 2001 > >> > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic (I'm > >> > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a > Cliff > >> > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to > be > >> > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are > >> > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding > >> the > >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's > "progressions." > >> > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but > when > >> > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound > >> that > >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. > >> > > >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on > >> Spottify > >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the thrill > >> of > >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web > >> (forgive > >> > the pun)? How do we navigate it? > >> > > >> > Michael > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> On > >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman > >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM > >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > >> > > >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to > >> see > >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty > >> questions > >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or > >> parsing > >> > them out would be much appreciated. > >> > > >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught > from a > >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It > >> intersperses > >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, > gospel, > >> > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of > >> > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are > >> > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I do > >> > glean is more along the following lines: > >> > > >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, > >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless > >> > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one > >> looks > >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and > piano/banjo/guitar, > >> > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. > Those > >> > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others > >> fit > >> > into or around. > >> > > >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, > >> opera, > >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat govern > >> the > >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in > >> churches, > >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen > to > >> > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not > wholly > >> > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". > The > >> > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. > >> > > >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / > >> descendants > >> > are usually considered within that family. > >> > > >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous > for > >> > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and > >> > performance to performance. > >> > > >> > Thoughts? > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < > >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General > >> > > Systems Theory. > >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to write > a > >> > > well-developed thought this time, either. > >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the > >> > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a > >> > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see that > >> > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks > out > >> > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally get > >> > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." > >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. > >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. > >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with > >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas Michael > >> > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the > progression > >> of > >> > chords. > >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) > >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets > up, > >> > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... > >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left > >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized > >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? > >> > > > >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto: > >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > >> Of > >> > > Glassman, Michael > >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 > >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > >> > > > >> > > Hi Huw, > >> > > > >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I wonder > >> > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. > >> > > > >> > > Michael > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Huw > >> > > Lloyd > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM > >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created > >> > > > >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an > abeyance > >> > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that > >> > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity > >> > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an > >> > orientation. > >> > > > >> > > Huw > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly > interesting > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se > >> > > > es > >> > > > > -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click > >> > > > &p > >> > > > > gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to > >> > > > p- > >> > > > news&_r=0 > >> > > > > >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life > >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I don't > >> > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her > >> > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media > >> > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some > >> > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the > >> > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways > the > >> > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can > understand. > >> > > > > >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer > going > >> > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though if > >> > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened > closely > >> > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different > >> > directions. > >> > > > > >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my > >> > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its developing > >> > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap > back > >> > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from > >> > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. > >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, > >> > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category > >> > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries > >> > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them > >> > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How > will > >> > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers > >> > > > (using Lewin's original > >> > > concept) determining what we listen to? > >> > > > > >> > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been > >> > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict > >> > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small > >> > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can > see > >> > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" > >> > > > > >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. > >> > > > > >> > > > Michael > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 9 09:51:22 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:51:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [DCOG-HCI] Fwd: 2 Assistant Professor Positions (tenure-track) in Designing Quality Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) In-Reply-To: References: <1554630241.90003629.1433866052600.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <27970340.90008366.1433866190209.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: great faculty opportunities. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Wakkary Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:09 AM Subject: 2 Assistant Professor Positions (tenure-track) in Designing Quality Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) To: "Wakkary, R.L." Dear colleagues and friends, We are seeking 2 tenure-track Assistant Professor positions to join our newly formed research chair "Impact of Interaction Design on Everyday Life" in Eindhoven, Netherlands at the Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in the Industrial Design Faculty. I joined TU/e as a Chair in conjunction with my position at Simon Fraser University. Together with Stephan Wensveen and Oscar Tomico this group is part of the Designing Quality in Interaction (DQI) group in Industrial Design. These positions are a great opportunity to do interaction design research and teaching alongside an incredible group of designers, design researchers, educators, and students in a great environment like TU/e and design city like Eindhoven. If you are interested or have a recent PhD graduate or soon to graduate PhD who would be interested then contact me or have them contact me. Please circulate this call widely! I appreciate your help and interest. best, Ron p.s. note that the deadline on the TU/e website is incorrect. We will accept applications through to August 1st but commence interviews as soon as we have qualified candidates. 2 Assistant Professor Positions (tenure-track) in Designing Quality Interaction Group, Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) ------------------------------------------ We are seeking two Assistant Professor positions in the ?Impact of Interaction Design on Everyday Life? core chair research group that is part of the Designing Quality in Interaction (DQI) capacity group. Visit: http://jobs.tue.nl/en/vacancy/assistant-professors-2-fulltime-positions-220175.html for more information and to apply online. The Impact of Interaction Design on Everyday Life research group focuses on reflective explorations in interaction design. Our research investigates the changing nature of interaction design in response to everyday design and social practices such as home life, amateur experts, fashion and sustainability. In particular, we research everyday creativity, materiality, and critical reasoning in design that leads to inquiries on new types of interaction design artifacts, materials, and methods. In the spirit of research through design, we aim to be reflective and generative, uncovering new and emergent practices of design that help to shape both the design of and relations to technologies. The Designing Quality in Interaction (DQI) group is a strong and forward-looking group of researchers and educators that shares a set of common values in approach and motivation. These values are characterized by a holistic and designerly approach to research and education in which we highly value ?making? as the mechanism to gain new insight and theory. Our take on design and design research is strongly flavoured by our theoretical positioning that highlights embodiment and ethical and socio-cultural aspects of design. Consequently, we experientially investigate how meaning (information for use) can emerge in interaction and how we can design for meaning in (interactive and intelligent) systems, products and related services. We regard the aesthetical aspects of form, interaction and behaviour as paramount in this. This also influences our research method as we adopt (and have pioneered) a Research through Design approach. We are looking for candidates for the two Assistant Professor positions that have a good sense of quality and affinity with craftsmanship in the field of (physical) interaction design and who can strengthen us as a group by complementing us in terms of skills, insight and theoretical background. The candidates should have a PhD in interaction design, human-computer interaction, industrial design, information studies, or related disciplines. Within the domain of interaction design the candidate should have proven skills and knowledge in interaction design or human-computer interaction, and should be able to set up and conduct design research that is grounded in relevant theories from social sciences, philosophy of technology, or design. A candidate should have a track record of publications in top journals and conferences, and should be open and interested in an industrial and interaction design environment. Strong methodological skills (e.g. qualitative user research methods or research through design) are required. The candidate has affinity with education and is willing to integrate his/her teaching and research activities in a theme. We warmly welcome a high quality design (research) portfolio and encourage the candidate to position himself/herself in our group in the motivation letter in terms of strengthening and complementing. General information about the Department Industrial Design, candidates will find on http://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/industrial-design/ About this position candidates can get more information from Prof. Dr. Ron Wakkary, ?Impact of Interaction Design on Everyday Life? core chair, email: r.l.wakkary@tue.nl,. If you have any questions about the application procedure or labour conditions, please contact Annemarie Hendriks, HR advisor, telnr. +31 40 247 5954 (HR-IndustrialDesign@tue.nl). ----- Ron Wakkary Visiting Professor and Chair of the Impact of Interaction Design on Everyday Life Industrial Design Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) Eindhoven, Netherlands Professor, SIAT Simon Fraser University Surrey, BC, Canada t. 778 782 2322 http://www.sfu.ca/~rwakkary -- Scott Klemmer ? Associate Professor ? UC San Diego Design Lab ? Cognitive Science ? Computer Science & Engineering http://d.ucsd.edu/srk @DesignAtLarge Listen to BBC's Forum where we discuss the future of learning http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qm95w _______________________________________________ dcog-hci mailing list dcog-hci@hci.ucsd.edu http://hci.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcog-hci -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 9 13:30:44 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 20:30:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Professor of Psychology The Department of Psychology at Universidad de los Andes Colombia In-Reply-To: References: <1554630241.90003629.1433866052600.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> <27970340.90008366.1433866190209.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Message-ID: <7A343F1E-5974-49EB-8BA7-3C6E7F871E37@uniandes.edu.co> The Department of Psychology at Universidad de los Andes (1st in Colombia, and 5th in Latin-America according to QS University Rankings), invites applications for a full-time professorial position with exclusive dedication, beginning August 2015. Candidates are required to have a doctoral degree, as well as training or experience in one of the following areas: Organizational Psychology, Educational Psychology, Consumer Psychology, Health and Clinical Psychology, or Social Intervention. Responsibilities The selected candidate will be expected to: develop research and/or intervention projects in his/her area of expertise and procure external funding; teach at the undergraduate, graduate and extension levels; and participate in the activities and institutional development of the department and university. Further information about the Psychology Department and the Universidad de los Andes can be found at psicologia.uniandes.edu.co Academic Requirements ? Completed doctorate in Psychology or related areas. ? Experience in research or intervention projects, and publications in scientific journals. ? Teaching experience is desirable, although not a requirement. Position The Department is interested in hiring a candidate in the category of Assistant or Associate Professor. A formal process based on the candidate?s qualifications and following university regulations will determine the salary and the specific category. Salaries and benefits are competitive in the Colombian context (for more information, please contact the department chair). From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 21:24:17 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:24:17 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Michael, Staccato can be clear and distinct; it has an undeserved bad rap for harshness that to my ear is a separate thing (color not articulation). So your staccato comments were well taken. While an undergrad at Indiana U/Bloomington, I was introduced to Schenker as a master of analysis. He viewed the large-scale harmonic and melodic planning of works, as the reverse process of ornamentation/elaboration. So we would keep simplifying the structures of, say, a sonata, over longer and longer time scales, to reduce from a fully worked-out movement down to basic scale-step and chord progressions. If calling that hermeneutics isn't helpful (though I have seen that done in recent literature on Schenker) the term analysis suits just as well. What I was really trying to do was to draw a distinction between "interpretation" as performing musicians, dancers, builders, and cooks know it, adding complexity and depth to a plan, and "interpretation" as a theatergoer might attend Macbeth and come away with the reductive insight ("moral") that unbridled ambition can do great harm. As to personal ownership of creative works, that's a simpler question with a poem written in solitude, than with a symphony or opera or film. The latter type can be imagined by one person, but not fully realized or communicated without large and skilled teams. (One of the common reasons for those awful reviews of premieres, is that the performances fall far short of the composer's intentions. Patience, effort and luck in abundance are often needed for a work to ever be performed a second time.) We are both social creatures and individuals. Pigeonholing a creator as either one or the other can distort the creative process. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Hyman wrote: > Larry, > > A pleasure to share ideas about music and how people experience it. I have > to think through most of your post, still, but as to Brahms: a classic > quote of his, "first ideas are good - they come from God." First ideas > were, inherently, not what he published (or ultimately, burned). By the > time he had worked through a piece and could present it, what he sent was > his work. However, he famously collaborated with colleagues (e.g., Joseph > Joachim about the Violin Concerto) and studied the works of forebears in > great detail. And his idiom and materials were clearly in the air of his > time. > > His scores, blueprints to use a metaphor instead of a buzzword, were about > as intentional as any composer's were, ever. Their contents, syntax, and > working-out were part of the shared understanding of his time. By the time > the Fourth Symphony was performed, the conductor and players did their own > work to make it come alive. So by the time the audience heard it, many > people had joined forces to convey it. In that context, I'm not sure what > the question about personal ownership really means. > > It being dinnertime in Kiev, message adjourned for now; be well! > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote: > >> Daniel, >> Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is >> happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are >> rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme while >> remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression >> and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed" >> [not >> merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a >> traditional theme] >> THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground, >> receding >> to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as >> "musical hermeneutics" >> >> As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of >> OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING REVEALED >> and then next becoming synthesized. It seems more like an enveloping >> movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or >> back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing >> extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft. >> >> When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE? >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss wrote: >> >> > Michael, Daniel, >> > >> > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the >> > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. >> > Michael wrote: >> > >> > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to >> maintain >> > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - that >> > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between >> Lewin's >> > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that >> helped >> > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas >> > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than >> supports >> > our mission" >> > >> > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern >> > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is >> > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. >> > >> > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought >> > provoking: >> > >> > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and >> meaning in >> > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in >> clouds >> > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when >> > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people >> > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something >> to do >> > with making meaningful connections happen" >> > >> > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek them >> > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The >> > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS A >> > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" >> but >> > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. >> > >> > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for such >> > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" >> > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and >> > "created". >> > >> > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the individual >> > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions >> that >> > "run through" THEMES. >> > >> > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found "link" >> > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and >> > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that >> > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. >> > >> > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post on >> > "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by >> NECESSITY >> > within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality >> and >> > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event >> time >> > that are LINKED. >> > >> > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and >> > feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making >> > meaning connections happen. >> > >> > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various >> > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". >> > >> > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal >> > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - >> > >> > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional >> > time and space which is the more common sense experience of >> > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are >> invisible >> > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the >> foregoround >> > >> > AND >> > >> > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" >> or >> > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative >> > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that >> "show >> > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic >> expressions >> > happening in the "moment". >> > >> > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these >> various >> > pro-gressions [in time and space]? >> > >> > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and >> not >> > mere cacophony. >> > >> > Larry >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman < >> daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, Michael - >> >> >> >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I >> >> think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. >> >> >> >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels >> >> between >> >> music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an >> >> experience, >> >> hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, >> skill, >> >> refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of >> value. >> >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to >> >> understanding and enjoyment. >> >> >> >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the >> >> music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well beyond >> >> the >> >> idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of >> wine, of >> >> all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same >> industrial >> >> network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for >> white, >> >> I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that Spotify's >> >> concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for >> classical >> >> music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any >> >> classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. >> >> >> >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) >> in >> >> their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in >> his >> >> B >> >> Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while >> >> great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to >> >> consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George >> >> Gershwin's >> >> "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church >> >> composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned >> >> counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries if >> >> not >> >> millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having >> >> meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally >> >> constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to >> >> sample the connections described in the article. But these music >> >> distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems >> >> pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. >> >> >> >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and >> meaning in >> >> them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in >> clouds >> >> and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when >> >> there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people >> >> with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something >> to >> >> do >> >> with making meaningful connections happen. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, >> >> > >> >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down >> what >> >> > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That >> often >> >> > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research >> >> > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a >> >> theme. I >> >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really >> >> > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already >> exists >> >> and >> >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by allowing >> >> > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas >> they >> >> > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. If >> you >> >> > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord >> >> progression >> >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it >> makes >> >> the >> >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I >> have >> >> > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was >> >> > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or >> >> > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break >> much of >> >> > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands >> of >> >> the >> >> > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking >> >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different directions. >> >> How >> >> > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal >> >> forces >> >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet >> and >> >> the >> >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users. >> >> > >> >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over the >> >> last >> >> > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this new >> >> (or >> >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people on >> >> this >> >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me I >> >> can >> >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and Lewin's >> >> et. >> >> > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original >> 2001 >> >> > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic >> (I'm >> >> > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a >> Cliff >> >> > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem >> to be >> >> > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these are >> >> > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by understanding >> >> the >> >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's >> "progressions." >> >> > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but >> when >> >> > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound >> >> that >> >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. >> >> > >> >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on >> >> Spottify >> >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the >> thrill >> >> of >> >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web >> >> (forgive >> >> > the pun)? How do we navigate it? >> >> > >> >> > Michael >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] >> >> On >> >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman >> >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM >> >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> >> > >> >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted to >> >> see >> >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty >> >> questions >> >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or >> >> parsing >> >> > them out would be much appreciated. >> >> > >> >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught >> from a >> >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It >> >> intersperses >> >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, >> gospel, >> >> > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention of >> >> > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are >> >> > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I >> do >> >> > glean is more along the following lines: >> >> > >> >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, >> >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody (unless >> >> > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one >> >> looks >> >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and >> piano/banjo/guitar, >> >> > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. >> Those >> >> > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the others >> >> fit >> >> > into or around. >> >> > >> >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, >> >> opera, >> >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat >> govern >> >> the >> >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in >> >> churches, >> >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. Listen >> to >> >> > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not >> wholly >> >> > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers Awake". >> The >> >> > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. >> >> > >> >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / >> >> descendants >> >> > are usually considered within that family. >> >> > >> >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous >> for >> >> > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and >> >> > performance to performance. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < >> >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General >> >> > > Systems Theory. >> >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to >> write a >> >> > > well-developed thought this time, either. >> >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of the >> >> > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a >> >> > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see >> that >> >> > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks >> out >> >> > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally >> get >> >> > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." >> >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. >> >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. >> >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with >> >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas >> Michael >> >> > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the >> progression >> >> of >> >> > chords. >> >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) >> >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" sets >> up, >> >> > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... >> >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left >> >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized >> >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? >> >> > > >> >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! >> >> > > >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> [mailto: >> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >> Behalf >> >> Of >> >> > > Glassman, Michael >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 >> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi Huw, >> >> > > >> >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I >> wonder >> >> > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. >> >> > > >> >> > > Michael >> >> > > >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >> Huw >> >> > > Lloyd >> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM >> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >> >> > > >> >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an >> abeyance >> >> > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and that >> >> > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity >> >> > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an >> >> > orientation. >> >> > > >> >> > > Huw >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael >> >> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly >> interesting >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se >> >> > > > es >> >> > > > >> -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click >> >> > > > &p >> >> > > > >> gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to >> >> > > > p- >> >> > > > news&_r=0 >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life >> >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I >> don't >> >> > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her >> >> > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media >> >> > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some >> >> > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the >> >> > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the ways >> the >> >> > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can >> understand. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer >> going >> >> > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though >> if >> >> > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened >> closely >> >> > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different >> >> > directions. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my >> >> > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its >> developing >> >> > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap >> back >> >> > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from >> >> > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. >> >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, >> >> > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category >> >> > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these boundaries >> >> > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them >> >> > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How >> will >> >> > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers >> >> > > > (using Lewin's original >> >> > > concept) determining what we listen to? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been >> >> > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict >> >> > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of small >> >> > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can >> see >> >> > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Michael >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > > From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Jun 10 07:59:49 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Role reversal for illustration purposes... Message-ID: Apparently a lot of articles flourishing at the Guardian, thanks to good old Tim Hunt! http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/jun/10/tim-hunt-old-men-women-controversy-science From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 10 15:12:44 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:12:44 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Followup on "If you want to under something, try to change it" Message-ID: Poking along with this issue I have arrived at Urie Bronfenbrenner's 1979 volume on the ecology of human development. There, among other things, I found a passage where he links this idea to the notion of formative, or as he translates it here, a transformative, experiment that he takes from...... This foreshortened theoretical perspective [of American psychology-mc] was first brought to my attention by Professor A. N. Leontiev of the University of Moscow. At the time, more than a decade ago, I was an exchange scientist at the Institute of Psychology there. We had been discussing differences in the assumptions underlying research on human development in the Soviet Union and in the United States. In summing up his views, Professor Leontiev offered the following judgment: "It seems to me that American researchers are constantly seeking to explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the U.S.S.R. are striving to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how he can become what he not yet is." Leontiev's statement is of course reminiscent of Dearborn's** in?junction (" If you want to understand something, try to change it."), but it goes much further; indeed, in Leontiev's view, it is revolutionary in its implications. Soviet psychologists often speak of what they call the "transforming experiment." By this they mean an experiment that radically restructures the environment, producing a new configuration that activates previously unrealized behavioral potentials of the subject. (1979, p. 41) For them what's interested. mike (**Dearborn was one of UB's psych professors - as noted on xmca, this notion is widely attributed to Kurt Lewin U.B acknowledged as a major influence on his work) -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From gutierkd@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 15:27:36 2015 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:27:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Followup on "If you want to under something, try to change it" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3573ECF8-B663-430D-AC5D-60DC7DE65916@gmail.com> Susan Jurow and I just used this quote for our new paper Good timing Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:12 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Poking along with this issue I have arrived at Urie Bronfenbrenner's 1979 > volume on the ecology of human development. > There, among other things, I found a passage where he links this idea to > the notion of formative, or as he translates it here, > a transformative, experiment that he takes from...... > > This foreshortened theoretical perspective [of American psychology-mc] was > first brought to my attention by Professor A. N. Leontiev of the University of > Moscow. At the time, more than a decade ago, I was an exchange scientist at > the Institute of Psychology there. We had been discussing differences in the > assumptions underlying research on human development in the Soviet Union and > in the United States. In summing up his views, Professor Leontiev offered > the following judgment: "It seems to me that American researchers are > constantly seeking to explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the > U.S.S.R. are striving to discover not how the child came to be what he is, > but how he can become what he not yet is." > > > > Leontiev's statement is of course reminiscent of Dearborn's** in?junction (" > If you want to understand something, try to change it."), but it goes much > further; indeed, in Leontiev's view, it is revolutionary in its > implications. Soviet psychologists often speak of what they call the > "transforming experiment." By this they mean an experiment that radically > restructures the environment, producing a new configuration that > activates previously unrealized behavioral potentials of the subject. > (1979, p. 41) > > > For them what's interested. > > mike > > > (**Dearborn was one of UB's psych professors - as noted on xmca, this > notion is widely attributed to Kurt Lewin U.B acknowledged as a major > influence on his work) > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 10 15:35:30 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:35:30 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Followup on "If you want to under something, try to change it" In-Reply-To: <3573ECF8-B663-430D-AC5D-60DC7DE65916@gmail.com> References: <3573ECF8-B663-430D-AC5D-60DC7DE65916@gmail.com> Message-ID: Call it zeitgeist, Kris. mike PS-- Perhaps Lewin coped the idea from Leontiev who swiped it from Dearborn? :-) mike On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Kris Gutierrez wrote: > Susan Jurow and I just used this quote for our new paper Good timing > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:12 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Poking along with this issue I have arrived at Urie Bronfenbrenner's 1979 > > volume on the ecology of human development. > > There, among other things, I found a passage where he links this idea to > > the notion of formative, or as he translates it here, > > a transformative, experiment that he takes from...... > > > > This foreshortened theoretical perspective [of American psychology-mc] > was > > first brought to my attention by Professor A. N. Leontiev of the > University of > > Moscow. At the time, more than a decade ago, I was an exchange scientist > at > > the Institute of Psychology there. We had been discussing differences in > the > > assumptions underlying research on human development in the Soviet Union > and > > in the United States. In summing up his views, Professor Leontiev offered > > the following judgment: "It seems to me that American researchers are > > constantly seeking to explain how the child came to be what he is; we in > the > > U.S.S.R. are striving to discover not how the child came to be what he > is, > > but how he can become what he not yet is." > > > > > > > > Leontiev's statement is of course reminiscent of Dearborn's** > in?junction (" > > If you want to understand something, try to change it."), but it goes > much > > further; indeed, in Leontiev's view, it is revolutionary in its > > implications. Soviet psychologists often speak of what they call the > > "transforming experiment." By this they mean an experiment that > radically > > restructures the environment, producing a new configuration that > > activates previously unrealized behavioral potentials of the subject. > > (1979, p. 41) > > > > > > For them what's interested. > > > > mike > > > > > > (**Dearborn was one of UB's psych professors - as noted on xmca, this > > notion is widely attributed to Kurt Lewin U.B acknowledged as a major > > influence on his work) > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 16:09:22 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:09:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Lloyd Alexander on becoming (and Heidegger?) Message-ID: I didn't want to hijack mike's thread but his comment reminds me of Lord Dallben's line to the Princess Eilonwy as she sets off on a quest (from Lloyd Alexander's children's classic Castle of Llyr) and which seems to point to the paradox* of being and becoming: "For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are." And this to the notion of "becoming" - perhaps someone out there could help me with the literature on "becoming"? (I would add that Heidegger is quite critical of "becoming" - He has a quote about us becoming "who we already are" - I'm not entirely sure that I understand Heidegger's point - perhaps someone can help). -greg *NB: this is paradoxical only if one understands being as a self-contained thing. If being is social and caught up with others, then the paradox would be flipped - how is it that being could possible remain constant if social contexts are constantly changing. That seems perhaps the more serious question to ask. -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 10 16:31:21 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:31:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Memorandum: memory and history in psychology - n. 28 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:18 PM Subject: Memorandum: memory and history in psychology - n. 28 To: lchcmike@gmail.com *Memorandum: memory and history in psychology* *Issue 28* http://www.fafich.ufmg.br/memorandum Editorial - Diversas interfaces entre psicolog?a, hist?ria e cultura Editorial - The various interfaces between Psychology, History and Culture Miguel Mahfoud and Marina Massimi Da materialidade fisiol?gica ? materialidade psicol?gica: sobre as origens da no??o psicanal?tica de realidade ps?quica nas duas ?ltimas d?cadas do s?culo XIX >From physiological materiality to psychological materiality: the origins of the psychoanalytic notion of psychical reality in the last two decades of nineteenth century Caio Padovan A histeria nas revis?es do caso Emmy Von N: contribui??es para a hist?ria da psican?lise The hysteria on the reviews of case Emmy von N. : contributions to psychoanalisys history Glaucia Val?ria Pinheiro de Brida and Gustavo Adolfo Ramos Mello Neto Desarrollo psicol?gico, naturaleza y cultura en la teor?a de Arnold Gesell: un an?lisis de la psicolog?a como disciplina de saber-poder Psychological development, nature and culture on Arnold Gesell?s theory: an analysis of psychology as a knowledge-power discipline Ana Briolotti Cuidado e cura do ?nimo pela palavra: matrizes te?ricas da orat?ria de Ant?nio Vieira Care and healing of the soul by the word: theoretical frameworks of Ant?nio Vieira?s oratory Marina Massimi O Brasil ? a terra do pandeiro: um estudo das contribui??es de diferentes express?es art?sticas para a representa??o do samba e do carnaval como ?cones nacionais Brazil is the land of the tambourine: a study of contributions of different artistic expressions for the representation of samba and Carnival as national icons Ronald Clay dos Santos Ericeira and Ana Maria Jac? Villela Representa??es sociais de ?ser mulher militante?: as imbrica??es entre gera??o e g?nero na trajet?ria de milit?ncia de mulheres durante a ditadura militar brasileira Social representations of ?being a militant woman?: the imbrications between generation and gender in women's militancy trajectory during the Brazilian military dictatorship Ingrid Faria Gianordoli-Nascimento, Flaviane da Costa Oliveira, Ja?za Pollyanna Dias da Cruz, Jana?na Campos de Freitas, D?bora Barbosa dos Reis, Thayna Larissa Aguilar dos Santos and B?rbara Gon?alves Mendes Narrar para narrar-se: entre o livro e a sabedoria, a autoria To narrate while narrating oneself: between the book and the wisdom, authorship Leda Verdiani Tfouni, Diana Junkes Bueno Martha and Dion?ia Motta Monte-Serrat A constru??o discursiva da autoridade e do saber salesianos no jornal Di?rio do Com?rcio de S?o Jo?o del-Rei em meados do s?culo The discursive construction of Salesian authority and erudition in the newspaper Di?rio do Com?rcio from S?o Jo?o del-Rei in the mid-twentieth century Rodolfo Lu?s Leite Batista, Mar?lia Novais da Mata Machado and Carlos Henrique de Souza Gerken O lugar da m?stica na cl?nica psicanal?tica The position of mysticism in psychoanalytic clinic Paulo Henrique Curi Dias and Gilberto Safra Elabora??o da experi?ncia ontol?gica em Albert Schweitzer: an?lise fenomenol?gica de uma autobiografia Elaboration of the ontological experience in Albert Schweitzer: a phenomenological analysis of an autobiography Roberta Vasconcelos Leite and Miguel Mahfoud La autoridad pedag?gica de los docentes The pedagogical authority in teachers Carlos Cantero A experi?ncia de estudantes sobre a aten??o psicol?gica disponibilizada na universidade: um estudo fenomenol?gico The experience of students about the psychological attention in the university: a phenomenological study Grasiela Gomide de Souza and Vera Engler Cury In memoriam Serge Moscovici (14/06/1925 - 16/11/2014): um percurso inovador na Psicologia Social Serge Moscovici (06/14/1925 - 11/16/2014): a pioneer in social psychology Brigido Vizeu Camargo Editors Miguel Mahfoud Marina Massimi Assistant Editors Roberta Vasconcelos Leite Yuri Elias Gaspar -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 10 16:37:33 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:37:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Lloyd Alexander on becoming (and Heidegger?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are." Here is an interesting line of access to thinking about such times. Victor is 3-4 years old and he has a favorite toy. A stick with a soft toy horse's head on it. The "horse" (stick with head) is named Trigger. Everywhere Victor goes, Trigger goes with him. Until they go to a fancy restaurant. Victor is told that on this occasion, Trigger will have to remain at home. To which Victor replies, "But without Trigger, I am only Victor." True story. mike On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > I didn't want to hijack mike's thread but his comment reminds me of Lord > Dallben's line to the Princess Eilonwy as she sets off on a quest (from > Lloyd Alexander's children's classic Castle of Llyr) and which seems to > point to the paradox* of being and becoming: > > "For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are." > > And this to the notion of "becoming" - perhaps someone out there could help > me with the literature on "becoming"? > > (I would add that Heidegger is quite critical of "becoming" - He has a > quote about us becoming "who we already are" - I'm not entirely sure that I > understand Heidegger's point - perhaps someone can help). > > -greg > > > *NB: this is paradoxical only if one understands being as a self-contained > thing. If being is social and caught up with others, then the paradox would > be flipped - how is it that being could possible remain constant if social > contexts are constantly changing. That seems perhaps the more serious > question to ask. > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From billkerr@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 17:16:03 2015 From: billkerr@gmail.com (Bill Kerr) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:16:03 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Lloyd Alexander on becoming (and Heidegger?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > And this to the notion of "becoming" - perhaps someone out there could help > me with the literature on "becoming"? > We come therefore close to the central problem of Western ontology: the relation between Being and Becoming. We have given a brief account of the problem in Chapter III. It is remarkable that two of the most influential works of the cen? tury were precisely devoted to this problem. We have in mind W hitehead's Process and Reality and Heidegger's Sein und Zeit. In both cases, the aim is to go beyond the identification of Being with timelessness, following the Voie Royale of west? ern philosophy since Plato and Aristotle.22 But obviously, we cannot reduce Being to Time, and we cannot deal with a Being devoid of any temporal connotation. The direction which the microscopic theory of irreversibility takes gives a new content to the speculations of W hitehead and Heidegger. It would go beyond the aim of this book to develop this prob? lem in greater detail; we hope to do it elsewhere. Let us notice that initial conditions, as summarized in a state of the system, are associated with Being; in contrast, the laws involving tem? poral changes are associated with Becoming. In our view, Being and Becoming are not to be opposed one to the other: they express two related aspects of reality. A state with broken time symmetry arises from a law with broken time symmetry, which propagates it into a state be? longing to the same category. In a recent monograph (From Being to Becoming), one of the authors concluded in the following terms: "For most of the founders of classical science-even for Einstein-science was an attempt to go beyond the world of appearances, to reach a timeless world of supreme rationality-the world of Spinoza. But perhaps there is a more subtle form of reality that involves both laws and games, time and eternity. " This is precisely the direction which the microscopic theory of irreversible processes is taking. - Prigogine and Stengers. Order out of Chaos (1984) http://en.bookfi.org/book/1509984 From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 10 19:36:56 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:36:56 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Positions at Skidmore College In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jess Sullivan Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Positions at Skidmore College To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Skidmore College is currently searching to fill two tenure track positions in the Psychology Department: one in Developmental Psychology and one in Cognition/Perception. I have attached both job ads, and have copied the Developmental ad below (since it is likely to be the more relevant of the two). The deadline for both positions is September 30th, 2015. Best wishes, Jess Sullivan Skidmore College The Department of Psychology at Skidmore College invites applications for a tenure-track position at the level of Assistant or Associate Professor in the area of Developmental Psychology beginning Fall 2016. The faculty member in this position will teach core courses (e.g., research methods, introductory course) and courses in their area of expertise (e.g., Adolescent and/or Adult Development), and will supervise undergraduate research. Within the context of a five-course teaching load, the position also occasionally includes teaching a first-year interdisciplinary seminar (topic open). Skidmore seeks to attract an academically and culturally diverse faculty, especially those who can contribute to the growing diversity and excellence of the community through their teaching, scholarship, and service. Enthusiasm for advising, teaching, and mentoring a diverse population of students is essential. We seek candidates who are firmly committed to undergraduate education, including the involvement of undergraduates in research programs that are theoretically and methodologically sophisticated and of nationally recognized quality. Excellent teaching and research facilities support many opportunities for faculty/student collaborative work in the classroom, lab, and field. Skidmore is a liberal arts institution of approximately 2,400 students, with 21% students of color, and 248 full- time faculty members, located in upstate New York. Skidmore offers support for faculty development in many ways, including pre-tenure sabbaticals, laboratory start-up funds, and internal grants. Preference will be given to candidates with teaching experience who have a Ph.D. in psychology or, if ABD, will complete the Ph.D. by Fall 2016, and who have potential to develop a significant research program in psychology. Candidates should submit all materials online by September 30, 2015, including cover letter, vita, selected reprints, research statement, teaching evaluations, teaching statement, transcripts for highest degree completed and email addresses for three letters of recommendation. Applicants are requested to include in their cover letter how they will enhance the diversity of offerings and educational experiences in the department and college with regards to their teaching, research, and/or service. Review of applications begins immediately and will continue until the position is filled. To learn more about and apply for this position please visit us online at: https://careers.skidmore.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=56483 Skidmore College is committed to being an inclusive campus community and, as an Equal Opportunity Employer, does not discriminate in its hiring or employment practices on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, military or marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, domestic violence victim status, predisposing genetic characteristics or prior arrest or conviction record or any other category protected by applicable federal, state, or local laws. Employment at Skidmore College is contingent upon an acceptable background check result. _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Psychology_AssistantAssociateCog_LOGO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162360 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150610/8ca80267/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Psychology_AssistantAssociateDevelopmental_LOGO.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 144320 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150610/8ca80267/attachment-0001.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Jun 10 21:00:00 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:00:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Lloyd Alexander on becoming (and Heidegger?) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hello! It has become apparent to me recently that Spinoza is the thorny key to everything. It's funny that he comes up on the list today. Also, there is nothing timeless like the present moment. Kind regards, Annalisa From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 22:11:36 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:11:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?_weRe=3A__Re=3A_Lloyd_Alexander_on_becoming_=28and_Hei?= =?utf-8?q?degger=3F=29?= In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <55791e4e.c280460a.6143.ffffb43b@mx.google.com> Annalisa, in what way do you see Spinoza as key. I have recently read Jan Derry's chapter titled Spinoza and Free Will and it seems that Spinoza can be read in multiple ways. Jan says for Spinoza free will depends on whether the thought that drives an action is ADEQUATE. How close to this term ?adequate? is the term ?proper thought? that guides action. Jan mentions that Spinoza is often read as a determinist but Spinoza can be read as theorizing freedom in a radically different way that depends on self-determination using adequate ideas. Becoming in this tradition requires adequate concepts as a key aspect of change. Sent from Windows Mail From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?June? ?10?, ?2015 ?9?:?00? ?PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Hello! It has become apparent to me recently that Spinoza is the thorny key to everything. It's funny that he comes up on the list today. Also, there is nothing timeless like the present moment. Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 14 18:45:22 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:45:22 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] PhD Studentship in Cross-Cultural Illusions! Message-ID: Doesn't this look eerily familiar? http://www.shh.mpg.de/53970/job_full_offer_9252757?c=12339 David Kellogg From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Jun 15 04:39:29 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:39:29 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Common core standards Message-ID: <55v7xu1c68orrjrdepnwyp6e.1434368369962@email.android.com> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13-127-1-PB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 326836 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150615/d3047fda/attachment-0001.pdf From cconnery@ithaca.edu Mon Jun 15 10:25:26 2015 From: cconnery@ithaca.edu (Cathrene Connery) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:25:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Common core standards In-Reply-To: <55v7xu1c68orrjrdepnwyp6e.1434368369962@email.android.com> References: <55v7xu1c68orrjrdepnwyp6e.1434368369962@email.android.com> Message-ID: Thank you very much! ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+cconnery=ithaca.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces+cconnery=ithaca.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Dr. Paul C. Mocombe [pmocombe@mocombeian.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 7:39 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Common core standards Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 15 12:00:36 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:00:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PhD Studentship in Cross-Cultural Illusions! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would be interested in what this generation of German scholars see as the major questions to be asked about the cultural foundations of visual illusions. Why is the topic still interesting? mike On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:45 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Doesn't this look eerily familiar? > > http://www.shh.mpg.de/53970/job_full_offer_9252757?c=12339 > > David Kellogg > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 16 17:00:13 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:00:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] David Lancy Message-ID: Just wanted to bring David Lancy's work to the attention of XMCA folks. He is an anthropologist (retired) who has done studies of childhood and learning in different cultures. He has authored a number of great books that articulate well with CHAT/SCT theories (e.g., The Anthropology of Childhood and The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood), and I kinda liked his blog here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/benign-neglect/201403/the-reluctant-teacher and here is is website for anyone interested: http://www.usu.edu/anthro/davidlancyspages/ Hopefully of use to someone out there... Cheers, greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Jun 16 17:19:11 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:19:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: David Lancy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ...and he worked with Mike! :) Martin On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Just wanted to bring David Lancy's work to the attention of XMCA folks. He > is an anthropologist (retired) who has done studies of childhood and > learning in different cultures. He has authored a number of great books > that articulate well with CHAT/SCT theories (e.g., The Anthropology of > Childhood and The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood), and I kinda liked > his blog here: > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/benign-neglect/201403/the-reluctant-teacher > > and here is is website for anyone interested: > http://www.usu.edu/anthro/davidlancyspages/ > > Hopefully of use to someone out there... > > Cheers, > greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Jun 17 07:10:57 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:10:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: David Lancy/AERA symposium proposal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CF21BE6-C331-485F-92CC-93CDF64534C2@gmail.com> Gente, My thanks to Greg and Martin! This thread seems connected to my interest in an AERA CHAT/Vygotsky related symposium on activities that school-age children do voluntarily, as in the Fifth Dimension projects Mike Cole has been so involved in. Would anybody out there be interested in taking part in such a symposium? Having devoted two and a half decades of my life to teacher ed and seeing the toxicity of schooling and testing, especially for the poor, grow during that time, I am thinking it?s time for me to take a good look at schooling from the outside. Reading David Lancey confirms this. Maisha Winn?s article on Literate Trajectories as well. Engstrom?s Wildfire article also. As a sub in two charter high schools here in Albuquerque for the last year, I have gotten to know youth-as-agents best by getting involved in things that they do outside of school: poetry, music, dance, art, martial arts, bicycling?I would like to deepen that connection next year and think that looking forward to sharing and presenting such projects with others at the AERA in Washington in April would be great synergy all around. I expect that such a symposium has already been done, in which case is it worth doing again? The deadline for paper and session submissions for the AERA is July 22nd I believe. Henry > On Jun 16, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > ...and he worked with Mike! :) > > Martin > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > >> Just wanted to bring David Lancy's work to the attention of XMCA folks. He >> is an anthropologist (retired) who has done studies of childhood and >> learning in different cultures. He has authored a number of great books >> that articulate well with CHAT/SCT theories (e.g., The Anthropology of >> Childhood and The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood), and I kinda liked >> his blog here: >> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/benign-neglect/201403/the-reluctant-teacher >> >> and here is is website for anyone interested: >> http://www.usu.edu/anthro/davidlancyspages/ >> >> Hopefully of use to someone out there... >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 17 14:36:39 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:36:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: David Lancy/AERA symposium proposal? In-Reply-To: <7CF21BE6-C331-485F-92CC-93CDF64534C2@gmail.com> References: <7CF21BE6-C331-485F-92CC-93CDF64534C2@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the two topics are not that closely related, Henry. David was a student colleague at Yale in the mid-1960's and is acknowledged as a contributor on the title page of *The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking" which we published in 1971. He has since gone on to a distinguished career in which he has both conducted cross-cultural research and used archival sources to enrich and complicate our ideas about culture and development. The work in which we study activities that " school-age children do voluntarily" came much later and so far as I know, David has not engaged in research of this kind. I will not be at AERA this coming year, but your topic certainly is of interest to me! mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:10 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Gente, > My thanks to Greg and Martin! This thread seems connected to my interest > in an AERA CHAT/Vygotsky related symposium on activities that school-age > children do voluntarily, as in the Fifth Dimension projects Mike Cole has > been so involved in. Would anybody out there be interested in taking part > in such a symposium? Having devoted two and a half decades of my life to > teacher ed and seeing the toxicity of schooling and testing, especially for > the poor, grow during that time, I am thinking it?s time for me to take a > good look at schooling from the outside. Reading David Lancey confirms > this. Maisha Winn?s article on Literate Trajectories as well. Engstrom?s > Wildfire article also. As a sub in two charter high schools here in > Albuquerque for the last year, I have gotten to know youth-as-agents best > by getting involved in things that they do outside of school: poetry, > music, dance, art, martial arts, bicycling?I would like to deepen that > connection next year and think that looking forward to sharing and > presenting such projects with others at the AERA in Washington in April > would be great synergy all around. I expect that such a symposium has > already been done, in which case is it worth doing again? The deadline for > paper and session submissions for the AERA is July 22nd I believe. > Henry > > > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > > > > ...and he worked with Mike! :) > > > > Martin > > > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > >> Just wanted to bring David Lancy's work to the attention of XMCA folks. > He > >> is an anthropologist (retired) who has done studies of childhood and > >> learning in different cultures. He has authored a number of great books > >> that articulate well with CHAT/SCT theories (e.g., The Anthropology of > >> Childhood and The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood), and I kinda > liked > >> his blog here: > >> > https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/benign-neglect/201403/the-reluctant-teacher > >> > >> and here is is website for anyone interested: > >> http://www.usu.edu/anthro/davidlancyspages/ > >> > >> Hopefully of use to someone out there... > >> > >> Cheers, > >> greg > >> > >> -- > >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > >> Assistant Professor > >> Department of Anthropology > >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > >> Brigham Young University > >> Provo, UT 84602 > >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 18 08:27:47 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:27:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] LSV&Spinoza Message-ID: For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in Spinoza, this article by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove a helpful entry point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is a draft version obtained from Jan with thanks. mike -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Derry.lsv.spinoza.doc Type: application/msword Size: 130598 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150618/cc920b5a/attachment.doc From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jun 18 08:42:17 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:42:17 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net> That's a PDF file, MIke. Try opening the attached instead. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in Spinoza, this article > by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove a helpful entry > point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is a draft version > obtained from Jan with thanks. > > mike > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Derry.lsv.spinoza.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 129116 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150619/705788d1/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 18 08:51:46 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:51:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net> References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net> Message-ID: Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the published version. Thanks Andy. mike On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > That's a PDF file, MIke. > Try opening the attached instead. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in Spinoza, this >> article >> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove a helpful entry >> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is a draft version >> obtained from Jan with thanks. >> >> mike >> >> > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Jun 18 12:10:56 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:10:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net>, Message-ID: Greetings all, I hope I'm not doing anything unhelpful by posting the Derry draft mike posted as a PDF to the list. I have labeled it as a draft to distinguish the difference from the published version that Andy posted. It is nice to see both versions, BTW. (Besides taking the .doc Mike posted and producing it as PDF, I added "Unpublished draft" to the abstract and the first page, as well as added a by line. Hope this is OK and I haven't transgressed any etiquette. If so the blame is with me and my free will and intellect which I hope I am deploying in my search for freedom! :) I am encouraged that there is an interest in Spinoza as of late! As well as consideration of what draughts Vygotsky drew from Spinoza's Philosophy. Hot dog! (Which is a barking animal!) I would like to propose that Spinoza's notion of "adequate" and "inadequate" thoughts do not have to do with genesis, but that is an interesting twist. I'd like to make the claim that it is his way of depicting the human experience of ignorance, which is an absence of knowledge (what is true vs not true). If you can follow the line of thought here, to say a thought is adequate is to say that it is a "good enough" thought, to say it is "inadequate" is to say that it misses the mark. But what is the mark? That which is true. Because our minds are limited in nature (they can never be omnipresent nor omniscient) our thoughts can only be adequate or inadequate, not accurate or inaccurate. It is my sense that Spinoza reflected on the consequences of thoughts (in the wake of Descartes) and he recognized that when we have inadequate thoughts then we will be led astray (by our ignorance), because such thoughts do not correspond with the world as it is. For Spinoza, to have adequate thoughts has the result of healing the mind (which is more what Spinoza meant, than "correcting" it). When the mind has a developed intellect then it is able to reflect what is true, and this is what Spinoza means by development of the intellect, and why this would bring one closer to God, because it generates the intellectual love of God. This is not a belief, but a direct consequence of understanding, and understanding for oneself and no one else but oneself. Also, any appropriation to pick and chose parts of Spinoza's philosophy seems inadequate to me. :) Particularly because of the importance Spinoza stressed about unity, which appears to be in response to Descartes' duality. In Vygotsky I have seen no discussion of Spinoza's understanding of substance, which is cause sui. I don't think that Spinoza meant that humans are causa sui in the sense Vygotsky appears to have appropriated it. I would have to do some thinking about that. But I can see how easy it is to have that confusion, particularly if one rejects a God. Of course, I do not mean to distress those on the list who do not accept a God, nor to I wish to press an argument to start debates in that realm, but perhaps I would prefer to say that it is easy to misunderstand Spinoza, which is based on what we bring to Spinoza when we read him. What isn't clear to me is whether Vygotsky misunderstood him, or intentionally appropriated what he could, given his political circumstances. If anyone has a comment on that I'd be curious to hear it. Furthermore, I would like to propose that the notion of activity, as Spinoza describes in his rendering of active and passive actions, has a lot of similarities to Vedic notions of karma, in the sense that we (as humans) choose proper action to gain a proper result. If we do actions without conscious choice, this would be parallel to Spinoza's passive activity. Or what might be called "mechanical thinking" or even, "unconscious acts". BTW as an aside, for what it is worth, animals cannot do choose their acts, as they operate based solely upon instinct, or perhaps their consciousness is not developed enough to be free of their instincts and so self-awareness is thus limited in scope, compared to human consciousness. I say this because animals do possess intelligence, and we can't deny its existence in them. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+annalisa=unm.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:51 AM To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the published version. Thanks Andy. mike On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > That's a PDF file, MIke. > Try opening the attached instead. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in Spinoza, this >> article >> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove a helpful entry >> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is a draft version >> obtained from Jan with thanks. >> >> mike >> >> > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Derry_The Unity of Intellect and Will-Vygotsky and Spinoza_draft_pre2006.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 130317 bytes Desc: Derry_The Unity of Intellect and Will-Vygotsky and Spinoza_draft_pre2006.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150618/c4114b15/attachment.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Jun 18 12:38:37 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 19:38:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?LSV=26Spinoza?= In-Reply-To: References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net>, Message-ID: <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com> Annalisa, Mike, Andy. thanks for this article. I would agree with Annalisa that it is very difficult to understand the meaning that Vygotsky was reading into engaging with Spinoza because of what we the readers bring to our understanding of the words/concepts used. I want to draw attention to the last line of Jan?s article. ?the point of this article a propos Vygotsky?s thought is that this first step REQUIRES philosophical work.? so we are in the realm [the kingdom of] philosophical psychology. Vygotsky lived in a time when the disciplines of philosophy and psychology were not so distinct and to understand psychology was to engage with philosophical inquiry. Jan also concludes with, ?Vygotsky considered freedom in Spinoza?s sense of self-determination as INTEGRAL to education as a specifically human process of COMING TO BE in the world.? This is the process of ?bildung? as Hegel used the term. to develop intellect and to develop will ARE processes of bildung leading towards self-determination through ?adequate concepts? which exist within a ?system?. I read the concept ?system? as used in the notion of adequate thought as linked also to ?tradition?. Vygotsky said that every word exists only within a ?theory? so a ?word? is never isolated or an orphaned word but always exists within a system that the word emerges ?from ?? To ?read a word is actually to read a ?word/from ?? in other words Jan is inviting us to enter a system or a tradition in order to understand the meaning of ?word? and ?concept? as Vygotsky meant these words. In order to enter the world of this word [as adequately used] is to ?know? where the word developed ?from ?? THIS system and tradition is expressing the meaning of the centrality of ?reason? but is not ?abstract reason? [which is orphaned reason which has lost its ancestral home] I would recommend Jan Derry?s new book [Vygotsky, Philosophy and Education] for a more extended conversation on her notion of how to adequately read Vygotsky through the systematic horizon of bildung [educational philosophy] Jan in her book attempts to show that reading Vygotsky through a ?constructivist horizon? is an inadequate reading emerging FROM an alternative system/tradition with different philosophical roots. I read Jan as helping to make clear that Vygotsky must be read ?from? a Spinoza and Hegelian tradition. Then we can engage with whether this tradition/system itself is adequate but the first step is to show that representational paradigms emerging from abstract reasoning are radically inadequate readings of freedom ?from? all constraint and simplistic notions of freedom.Larry Sent from Windows Mail From: mike cole Sent: ?Thursday?, ?June? ?18?, ?2015 ?8?:?51? ?AM To: Andy Blunden, eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the published version. Thanks Andy. mike On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > That's a PDF file, MIke. > Try opening the attached instead. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in Spinoza, this >> article >> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove a helpful entry >> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is a draft version >> obtained from Jan with thanks. >> >> mike >> >> > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From ablunden@mira.net Thu Jun 18 18:01:08 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:01:08 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com> References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net>, <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <558369D4.4060201@mira.net> To avoid some continued minor myth-building, what I posted was the same file Mike posted with the extension.doc changed to .pdf that's all. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/06/2015 5:38 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote: > Annalisa, Mike, Andy. > > thanks for this article. > I would agree with Annalisa that it is very difficult to > understand the meaning that Vygotsky was reading into > engaging with Spinoza because of what we the readers bring > to our understanding of the words/concepts used. I want to > draw attention to the last line of Jan?s article. > ?the point of this article a propos Vygotsky?s thought is > that this first step REQUIRES philosophical work.? > > so we are in the realm [the kingdom of] philosophical > psychology. Vygotsky lived in a time when the disciplines > of philosophy and psychology were not so distinct and to > understand psychology was to engage with philosophical > inquiry. > > Jan also concludes with, > ?Vygotsky considered freedom in Spinoza?s sense of > self-determination as INTEGRAL to education as a > specifically human process of COMING TO BE in the world.? > This is the process of ?bildung? as Hegel used the term. > > to develop intellect and to develop will ARE processes of > bildung leading towards self-determination > through ?adequate concepts? which exist within a ?system?. > I read the concept ?system? as used in the notion of > adequate thought as linked also to ?tradition?. > Vygotsky said that every word exists only within a ?theory? > so a ?word? is never isolated or an orphaned word but > always exists within a system that the word emerges ?from > ?? To ?read a word is actually to read a ?word/from ?? > > in other words Jan is inviting us to enter a system or a > tradition in order to understand the meaning of ?word? > and ?concept? as Vygotsky meant these words. In order > to enter the world of this word [as adequately used] is > to ?know? where the word developed ?from ?? > > THIS system and tradition is expressing the meaning of the > centrality of ?reason? but is not ?abstract reason? [which > is orphaned reason which has lost its ancestral home] > > I would recommend Jan Derry?s new book [Vygotsky, > Philosophy and Education] for a more extended conversation > on her notion of how to adequately read Vygotsky through > the systematic horizon of bildung [educational philosophy] > > Jan in her book attempts to show that reading Vygotsky > through a ?constructivist horizon? is an inadequate > reading emerging FROM an alternative system/tradition with > different philosophical roots. > I read Jan as helping to make clear that Vygotsky must be > read ?from? a Spinoza and Hegelian tradition. > Then we can engage with whether this tradition/system > itself is adequate but the first step is to show that > representational paradigms emerging from abstract > reasoning are radically inadequate readings of > freedom ?from? all constraint and simplistic notions of > freedom.Larry > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* mike cole > *Sent:* ?Thursday?, ?June? ?18?, ?2015 ?8?:?51? ?AM > *To:* Andy Blunden , eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity > > Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the > published version. Thanks > Andy. > mike > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > > That's a PDF file, MIke. > > Try opening the attached instead. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > >> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in > Spinoza, this > >> article > >> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove > a helpful entry > >> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is > a draft version > >> obtained from Jan with thanks. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Jun 18 20:40:29 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:40:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: <558369D4.4060201@mira.net> References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net>, <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com>, <558369D4.4060201@mira.net> Message-ID: Actually they are different. At least the abstracts are. First two sentences of the .pdf Andy posted: "Jerome Bruner points out in his prologue to the first volume of the English translation of The Collected Works that Vygotsky flirts with the idea that language creates free will. This paper attempts to consider the influence of the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Spinoza on Vygotsky." First two sentences of the .doc that mike posted: "English translation of The Collected Works that Vygotsky flirts with the idea that language creates free will. This paper attempts to consider the influence of the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Spinoza on Vygotsky." Anyone can look for oneself, and then there are no myths about it! And you don't have to believe me or mike, of course! :) Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+annalisa=unm.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:01 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza To avoid some continued minor myth-building, what I posted was the same file Mike posted with the extension.doc changed to .pdf that's all. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/06/2015 5:38 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote: > Annalisa, Mike, Andy. > > thanks for this article. > I would agree with Annalisa that it is very difficult to > understand the meaning that Vygotsky was reading into > engaging with Spinoza because of what we the readers bring > to our understanding of the words/concepts used. I want to > draw attention to the last line of Jan?s article. > ?the point of this article a propos Vygotsky?s thought is > that this first step REQUIRES philosophical work.? > > so we are in the realm [the kingdom of] philosophical > psychology. Vygotsky lived in a time when the disciplines > of philosophy and psychology were not so distinct and to > understand psychology was to engage with philosophical > inquiry. > > Jan also concludes with, > ?Vygotsky considered freedom in Spinoza?s sense of > self-determination as INTEGRAL to education as a > specifically human process of COMING TO BE in the world.? > This is the process of ?bildung? as Hegel used the term. > > to develop intellect and to develop will ARE processes of > bildung leading towards self-determination > through ?adequate concepts? which exist within a ?system?. > I read the concept ?system? as used in the notion of > adequate thought as linked also to ?tradition?. > Vygotsky said that every word exists only within a ?theory? > so a ?word? is never isolated or an orphaned word but > always exists within a system that the word emerges ?from > ?? To ?read a word is actually to read a ?word/from ?? > > in other words Jan is inviting us to enter a system or a > tradition in order to understand the meaning of ?word? > and ?concept? as Vygotsky meant these words. In order > to enter the world of this word [as adequately used] is > to ?know? where the word developed ?from ?? > > THIS system and tradition is expressing the meaning of the > centrality of ?reason? but is not ?abstract reason? [which > is orphaned reason which has lost its ancestral home] > > I would recommend Jan Derry?s new book [Vygotsky, > Philosophy and Education] for a more extended conversation > on her notion of how to adequately read Vygotsky through > the systematic horizon of bildung [educational philosophy] > > Jan in her book attempts to show that reading Vygotsky > through a ?constructivist horizon? is an inadequate > reading emerging FROM an alternative system/tradition with > different philosophical roots. > I read Jan as helping to make clear that Vygotsky must be > read ?from? a Spinoza and Hegelian tradition. > Then we can engage with whether this tradition/system > itself is adequate but the first step is to show that > representational paradigms emerging from abstract > reasoning are radically inadequate readings of > freedom ?from? all constraint and simplistic notions of > freedom.Larry > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* mike cole > *Sent:* ?Thursday?, ?June? ?18?, ?2015 ?8?:?51? ?AM > *To:* Andy Blunden , eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity > > Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the > published version. Thanks > Andy. > mike > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > > That's a PDF file, MIke. > > Try opening the attached instead. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > >> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in > Spinoza, this > >> article > >> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove > a helpful entry > >> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is > a draft version > >> obtained from Jan with thanks. > >> > >> mike > >> > >> > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi Thu Jun 18 20:49:42 2015 From: jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi (=?utf-8?Q?Jaakko_Hilpp=C3=B6?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:49:42 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net> <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com> <558369D4.4060201@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Those interested in Jan?s thinking and writing on the topic could also check out her new book published 2013 by Wiley-Blackwell: Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education Description Vygotsky Philosophy and Education reassesses the works of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky work by arguing that his central ideas about the nature of rationality and knowledge were informed by the philosophic tradition of Spinoza and Hegel. ? Presents a reassessment of the works of Lev Vygotsky in light of the tradition of Spinoza and Hegel informing his work ? Reveals Vygotsky?s connection with the work of contemporary philosophers such as Brandom and McDowell ? Draws on discussions in contemporary philosophy to revise prominent readings of Vygotskian psychology and revisits educational debates where Vygotsky?s ideas were central ? Reveals the limitations of appropriations of Vygotsky which fail to recognize the Hegelian provenance of his work ? Shows the relevance of Brandom?s inferentialism for contemporary educational theory and practice http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118368770.html Jake :o) > Annalisa Aguilar kirjoitti 19.6.2015 kello 6.40: > > > Actually they are different. > > At least the abstracts are. > > First two sentences of the .pdf Andy posted: > > "Jerome Bruner points out in his prologue to the first volume of the English translation of The Collected Works that Vygotsky flirts with the idea that language creates free will. This paper attempts to consider the influence of the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Spinoza on Vygotsky." > > First two sentences of the .doc that mike posted: > > "English translation of The Collected Works that Vygotsky flirts with the idea that language creates free will. This paper attempts to consider the influence of the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Spinoza on Vygotsky." > > Anyone can look for oneself, and then there are no myths about it! > > And you don't have to believe me or mike, of course! :) > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces+annalisa=unm.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:01 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza > > To avoid some continued minor myth-building, what I posted > was the same file Mike posted with the extension.doc changed > to .pdf that's all. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/06/2015 5:38 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote: >> Annalisa, Mike, Andy. >> >> thanks for this article. >> I would agree with Annalisa that it is very difficult to >> understand the meaning that Vygotsky was reading into >> engaging with Spinoza because of what we the readers bring >> to our understanding of the words/concepts used. I want to >> draw attention to the last line of Jan?s article. >> ?the point of this article a propos Vygotsky?s thought is >> that this first step REQUIRES philosophical work.? >> >> so we are in the realm [the kingdom of] philosophical >> psychology. Vygotsky lived in a time when the disciplines >> of philosophy and psychology were not so distinct and to >> understand psychology was to engage with philosophical >> inquiry. >> >> Jan also concludes with, >> ?Vygotsky considered freedom in Spinoza?s sense of >> self-determination as INTEGRAL to education as a >> specifically human process of COMING TO BE in the world.? >> This is the process of ?bildung? as Hegel used the term. >> >> to develop intellect and to develop will ARE processes of >> bildung leading towards self-determination >> through ?adequate concepts? which exist within a ?system?. >> I read the concept ?system? as used in the notion of >> adequate thought as linked also to ?tradition?. >> Vygotsky said that every word exists only within a ?theory? >> so a ?word? is never isolated or an orphaned word but >> always exists within a system that the word emerges ?from >> ?? To ?read a word is actually to read a ?word/from ?? >> >> in other words Jan is inviting us to enter a system or a >> tradition in order to understand the meaning of ?word? >> and ?concept? as Vygotsky meant these words. In order >> to enter the world of this word [as adequately used] is >> to ?know? where the word developed ?from ?? >> >> THIS system and tradition is expressing the meaning of the >> centrality of ?reason? but is not ?abstract reason? [which >> is orphaned reason which has lost its ancestral home] >> >> I would recommend Jan Derry?s new book [Vygotsky, >> Philosophy and Education] for a more extended conversation >> on her notion of how to adequately read Vygotsky through >> the systematic horizon of bildung [educational philosophy] >> >> Jan in her book attempts to show that reading Vygotsky >> through a ?constructivist horizon? is an inadequate >> reading emerging FROM an alternative system/tradition with >> different philosophical roots. >> I read Jan as helping to make clear that Vygotsky must be >> read ?from? a Spinoza and Hegelian tradition. >> Then we can engage with whether this tradition/system >> itself is adequate but the first step is to show that >> representational paradigms emerging from abstract >> reasoning are radically inadequate readings of >> freedom ?from? all constraint and simplistic notions of >> freedom.Larry >> Sent from Windows Mail >> >> *From:* mike cole >> *Sent:* ?Thursday?, ?June? ?18?, ?2015 ?8?:?51? ?AM >> *To:* Andy Blunden , eXtended >> Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> Oh! Whatever it was it was not supposed to be the >> published version. Thanks >> Andy. >> mike >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andy Blunden >> wrote: >> >>> That's a PDF file, MIke. >>> Try opening the attached instead. >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>> On 19/06/2015 1:27 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> For those of you, like myself, who are not steeped in >> Spinoza, this >>>> article >>>> by Jan Derry from 2006 (Educational Review) might prove >> a helpful entry >>>> point to the vygotsky-spinoza connection. This copy is >> a draft version >>>> obtained from Jan with thanks. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable >> which makes >> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >> something >> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Jun 18 21:00:11 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 04:00:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV&Spinoza In-Reply-To: References: <5582E6D9.5010203@mira.net> <558327be.aa42420a.093c.ffff8b83@mx.google.com> <558369D4.4060201@mira.net> , Message-ID: Thanks Jake! Kind regards, Annalisa From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Sat Jun 20 14:20:24 2015 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Sternberg's 2015 reflections on his search for the nature of intelligence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mike, I just saw this a month later after you posted it. I enjoyed the article. Unfortunately, schools and universities are still dominated by that static view of intelligence Sternberg criticizes, which not only limits access to many students but also send a strong signal to society about the way the young should be educated. I wonder how many great minds of the past would have not been able to make it to college in the current tested-dominated enviroment. Testing is also a way of stating what we as a society consider valuable as a skill. And Sternberg has always very lucidly noticed that behind testing there is a conception, many times limited, of what an intelligent person is. As education is growingly driven by a survival of the fittest ("smartest"?) approach instead of an approach based on collaboration and reciprocal enlightenment, not only schools but also higher education have became less intellectual and socially relevant. And, Flynn effect notwithstanding, we are on the verge of destroying the habitat that made our life as a species possible. David On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, mike cole wrote: > Concerning those questions about intelligence that were floating around > recently. Perhaps the attached will prove of intrest. I include Robert > Serpell's introduction. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > Dear colleagues, students and friends, > Please find attached a light-heartedly phrased but also insightful 2015 > essay by Robert Sternberg > ? > on the various approaches he has adopted over the years to research on the > nature of intelligence. > > It reminded me of conversations I have had with many of you over the years > ! > I hope you enjoy it. > > RS > Robert Serpell PhD > Professor of Psychology, University of Zambia > Coordinator, Centre for the Promotion of Literacy in Sub-Saharan Africa > (CAPOLSA) > Psychology Department, School of Humanities & Social Sciences > Great East Road Campus > PO Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia > > Phone: (+260) 211 290850 (direct line to my office) > Cell (+260) 977 758705 > > webpage http://unza.academia.edu/RobertSerpell > CAPOLSA website - new link: http://bit.ly/16nNi50 > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Jun 21 14:36:59 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:36:59 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Laudito Si Message-ID: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> Gente, It?s Father?s Day here in the USA. I?m a dad, So, I am giving myself permission to ask you what you are thinking as you read Ross Doutat?s attached editorial on the pope?s Laudito Si encyclical. Henry http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Sun Jun 21 16:26:14 2015 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Laudito Si In-Reply-To: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> References: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> Message-ID: As we in Santiago are breathing the worst air of the season tonight, it is very difficult not to sympathize with the notion that the environmental crisis has reached a point of no return. Beyond this doomed city, the prediction that 75% of the species will dissapear in two generations adds to those of the climate warming to a point where our survival as a species is at stake. I have not read Laudito Si just yet but there is no doubt that environmental issues are the most relevant ones of our time and I am glad that Francisco made the case that the poor are the most affected by them. DP On Sunday, June 21, 2015, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Gente, > It?s Father?s Day here in the USA. I?m a dad, So, I am giving myself > permission to ask you what you are thinking as you read Ross Doutat?s > attached editorial on the pope?s Laudito Si encyclical. > Henry > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 > < > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Jun 21 17:10:46 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:10:46 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Laudito Si In-Reply-To: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> References: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55875286.70703@mira.net> It is a welcome intervention. It is unlikely to have an effect on our closet climate denyong, Catholic Prime Minister, but it all adds up. People can read the encyclical here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html It's a good read. We are too late to avoid a combined world social and ecological collapse, but the more sections of the population abandon denial the better chance humanity has of surviving it. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 22/06/2015 7:36 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Gente, > It?s Father?s Day here in the USA. I?m a dad, So, I am giving myself permission to ask you what you are thinking as you read Ross Doutat?s attached editorial on the pope?s Laudito Si encyclical. > Henry > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Sun Jun 21 17:50:43 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:50:43 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NCBS Statement on Massacre in South Carolina Message-ID: Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: NCBS
Date:06/21/2015 5:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com
Subject: NCBS Statement on Massacre in South Carolina
NCBS Issues the following Statement in Response to the Tragic Events in Charleston, South Carolina * * * * * * * * JUNE * 20 * 2015 * * * * * * * * Peace and blessings Friends, We're are in a state of mourning By now we know that a self-proclaimed racist who wanted to start a race war calmly entered the Emanuel AME church during Bible study, waited an hour, perhaps to put the members at ease, and being Christian and trusting, the Black members were at ease, until Dylann Roof opened fire, killing 9 people-six women and three men, after declaring, "you rape our women and are taking over our country." Just yesterday our hearts bled for the tragic loss of Black lives at the hands of police officers. Today our hearts are bleeding for the tragic loss of lives due to the premeditated terrorist actions of Dylann Roof. Tomorrow, we pray, will bring no more bloodshed or loss of Black lives. We are outraged over the media's revisionist narrative that posits the church attack was not a hate crime directed at Blacks but at Christianity that Dylann Roof is mentally ill, that Black people murdered and abused by police officers were "hardly saints and thugs" who deserved their punishment. The National Council for Black Studies unequivocally condemns the violent and terrorist actions of those who relentlessly murder Black people, disturb our peace, and disrupt our community. NCBS' continued commitment to putting theory into practice leads us to the front lines of community issues throughout the African Diaspora. We support peace and social justice throughout the African Diaspora. Therefore, we also condemn the mass deportation of undocumented Haitian immigrants from the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas as the deadline to apply for legal status looms. As we hope tomorrow will bring no new bloodshed, we know that it will. And our hearts will continue to bleed, and we will cry a river. However, we will continue to fight for peace and social justice. We will not be silent. We urge all scholars, researchers and community leaders to build strong coalitions. Conduct meaningful study and research of black lives that impacts policy and ultimately impact the lives of our community - through our lens and not through the lens of people who seek to explain the hate away. Let's continue to demand justice and insist loudly that Black Lives Matter! Light, grace, and balance. Sincerely, Georgene Bess Montgomery, Ph.D. President, National Council for Black Studies FORWARD THIS EMAIL STAY CONNECTED Forward this email This email was sent to pmocombe@mocombeian.com by info@ncbsonline.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR BLACK STUDIES | University of Cincinnati | 3514 French Hall-Africana Studies | P.O. Box 210370 | Cincinnati | OH | 45221-0370 From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Jun 21 20:27:44 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:27:44 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Laudito Si In-Reply-To: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> References: <0716D2FB-7263-4789-9555-523861FC9285@gmail.com> Message-ID: claro que si mike On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:36 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Gente, > It?s Father?s Day here in the USA. I?m a dad, So, I am giving myself > permission to ask you what you are thinking as you read Ross Doutat?s > attached editorial on the pope?s Laudito Si encyclical. > Henry > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 > < > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-pope-francis-call-to-action-goes-beyond-the-environment.html?emc=edit_th_20150621&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=63154245 > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jun 22 16:24:48 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:24:48 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Leigh Star Special Issue Free!! Message-ID: Hi xmca-o-philes Below is a set of *links to a special issue of MCA* devoted Leigh Star, a much admired colleague who died a few years ago. The issue is full of interesting articles touching on many issues of long term concern to MCA readers. *THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS FREE FOR DOWNLOADING*! By all means avail yourself of this opportunity and pass along to your friends. ?mike on behalf of the editors ----------------- ?*Mind, Culture, and Activity* *Celebrates the Legacy of Susan Leigh Star* Routledge is pleased to offer free access to this special issue. Click the links below for access. ------------------------------ Introduction Geoffrey C. Bowker Toward a Grammar of Collaboration Yrj? Engestr?m, Anu Kajamaa, P?ivikki Lahtinen, and Annalisa Sannino Residual Categories in Medical Simulation: The Role of Affect in the Performance of Disease Ivana Guarrasi The Matter of Space: Bodily Performances and the Emergence of Boundary Objects During Multidisciplinary Design Meetings Alfredo Jornet and Rolf Steier Boundary Objects Revisited: A Comparative Analysis of World Making in Avant-Garde Fashion Design and Animal Husbandry Todd E. Nicewonger Struggling for Legitimacy: Trajectories of Membership and Naturalization in the Sorting Out of Engineering Students Kevin O?Connor, Frederick A. Peck, and Julie Cafarella >From Artifacts to Infrastructures in Studies of Learning Practices Frode Guribye -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 24 09:30:52 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:30:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Sternberg's 2015 reflections on his search for the nature of intelligence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, David. Hi IQ is correlated with rates of consumption and environmental degradation. Formal school has been its institutional hot house. Of species as well as humans, it might be said, "They who live by the sword, die by the sword." mike On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:20 PM, David Preiss wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I just saw this a month later after you posted it. I enjoyed the article. > Unfortunately, schools and universities are still dominated by that static > view of intelligence Sternberg criticizes, which not only limits access to > many students but also send a strong signal to society about the way the > young should be educated. I wonder how many great minds of the past would > have not been able to make it to college in the current tested-dominated > enviroment. > > Testing is also a way of stating what we as a society consider valuable as > a skill. And Sternberg has always very lucidly noticed that behind testing > there is a conception, many times limited, of what an intelligent person > is. As education is growingly driven by a survival of the fittest > ("smartest"?) approach instead of an approach based on collaboration and > reciprocal enlightenment, not only schools but also higher education have > became less intellectual and socially relevant. And, Flynn effect > notwithstanding, we are on the verge of destroying the habitat that made > our life as a species possible. > > David > > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Concerning those questions about intelligence that were floating around > > recently. Perhaps the attached will prove of intrest. I include Robert > > Serpell's introduction. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > > > > Dear colleagues, students and friends, > > Please find attached a light-heartedly phrased but also insightful 2015 > > essay by Robert Sternberg > > ? > > on the various approaches he has adopted over the years to research on > the > > nature of intelligence. > > > > It reminded me of conversations I have had with many of you over the > years > > ! > > I hope you enjoy it. > > > > RS > > Robert Serpell PhD > > Professor of Psychology, University of Zambia > > Coordinator, Centre for the Promotion of Literacy in Sub-Saharan Africa > > (CAPOLSA) > > Psychology Department, School of Humanities & Social Sciences > > Great East Road Campus > > PO Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia > > > > Phone: (+260) 211 290850 (direct line to my office) > > Cell (+260) 977 758705 > > > > webpage http://unza.academia.edu/RobertSerpell > > CAPOLSA website - new link: http://bit.ly/16nNi50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From philchappell@mac.com Thu Jun 25 00:56:22 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:56:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. I'm sad to pass this message on. Phil Chappell Dear SFL Friends With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time beforehand. I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he would be. There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year at Macquarie University. A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary friend to so many people around the world. Best regards, Geoff Williams From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 03:29:06 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:29:06 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that Vygotsky's theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As Vygotsky himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word meanings develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their wordings do. I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll miss her. David Kellogg On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell wrote: > Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have > joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great > advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. > > I'm sad to pass this message on. > > Phil Chappell > > Dear SFL Friends > > With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly > yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress > of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > beforehand. > > I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing > well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he > would be. > > There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and > date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are > available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate > Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year > at Macquarie University. > > A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary > friend to so many people around the world. > > Best regards, > Geoff Williams > > > > From philchappell@mac.com Thu Jun 25 04:06:52 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:06:52 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B5FA6B4-EFBD-4C73-A53D-4C0E5D460ACD@mac.com> I hear you, David. Ruqaiya's grammatical account of semiotic mediation was extremely instructive for me. She leaves volumes of ideas for us to chase. Phil > On 25 Jun 2015, at 8:29 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > > I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that Vygotsky's > theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too > narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As Vygotsky > himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word meanings > develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their > wordings do. > > I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll miss > her. > > David Kellogg > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell wrote: >> >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. >> >> I'm sad to pass this message on. >> >> Phil Chappell >> >> Dear SFL Friends >> >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time >> beforehand. >> >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he >> would be. >> >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year >> at Macquarie University. >> >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary >> friend to so many people around the world. >> >> Best regards, >> Geoff Williams >> >> >> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 25 08:06:18 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:06:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for passing along the news, as unwelcome as it is, Phill. Perhaps organizing something around MCA in her honor would be worthwhile.? Mike On Thursday, June 25, 2015, Phil Chappell wrote: > Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have > joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great > advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. > > I'm sad to pass this message on. > > Phil Chappell > > Dear SFL Friends > > With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly > yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress > of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > beforehand. > > I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing > well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he > would be. > > There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and > date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are > available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate > Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year > at Macquarie University. > > A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary > friend to so many people around the world. > > Best regards, > Geoff Williams > > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 08:55:19 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:55:19 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I knew about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not least because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! There may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, THAT I would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike suggests, an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that connection ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on Ruqaiya). Henry On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that Vygotsky's > theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too > narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As Vygotsky > himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word meanings > develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their > wordings do. > > I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll miss > her. > > David Kellogg > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell wrote: > >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. >> >> I'm sad to pass this message on. >> >> Phil Chappell >> >> Dear SFL Friends >> >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time >> beforehand. >> >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he >> would be. >> >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year >> at Macquarie University. >> >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary >> friend to so many people around the world. >> >> Best regards, >> Geoff Williams >> >> >> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 25 09:54:07 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:54:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Henry The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located in one particular part of them. THEY have to self organize. You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a starting point. Time will tell. betcha mike On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I knew > about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not least > because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! There > may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, THAT I > would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike suggests, > an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that connection > ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on Ruqaiya). > Henry > > > On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > > "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > Vygotsky's > > theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too > > narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > Vygotsky > > himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word meanings > > develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their > > wordings do. > > > > I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll miss > > her. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell > wrote: > > > >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have > >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a > great > >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and > Marx. > >> > >> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >> > >> Phil Chappell > >> > >> Dear SFL Friends > >> > >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly > >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the > stress > >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > >> beforehand. > >> > >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is > doing > >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know > he > >> would be. > >> > >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and > >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are > >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > celebrate > >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the > year > >> at Macquarie University. > >> > >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary > >> friend to so many people around the world. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Geoff Williams > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From philchappell@mac.com Thu Jun 25 15:41:48 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:41:48 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F580CC5-A45B-4239-A2F5-D63AD8668E0A@mac.com> That?s a good suggestion, Mike. Later in the year there will be an event at Macquarie University in Sydney that will undoubtedly be set up so that folks across the globe can participate. I?ll certainly make sure XMCA gets advance notice of this. I know that even last week Ruqaiya was working with colleagues on her ongoing project of her collected works, and that is certainly a good place for people to start. https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/collected-works-of-ruqaiya-hasan/ I?m afraid I don?t have much time at the moment to organise anything else but will gladly participate. In the meantime, folks might want to read Ruqaiya?s niece?s blog that has recent news. http://beenasarwar.com Phil > On 26 Jun 2015, at 1:06 am, mike cole wrote: > > Thanks for passing along the news, as unwelcome as it is, Phill. > Perhaps organizing something around MCA in her honor would be worthwhile.? > Mike > > On Thursday, June 25, 2015, Phil Chappell wrote: > >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. >> >> I'm sad to pass this message on. >> >> Phil Chappell >> >> Dear SFL Friends >> >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time >> beforehand. >> >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he >> would be. >> >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year >> at Macquarie University. >> >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary >> friend to so many people around the world. >> >> Best regards, >> Geoff Williams >> >> >> >> > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 15:54:58 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:54:58 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along the lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and discuss--and respond to--THIS: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less the same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another thing to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far the best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a good lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text structure: https://vimeo.com/76491567 David Kellogg On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > Hi Henry > > The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. > Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located in > one particular part > of them. THEY have to self organize. > > You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a > starting point. > > Time will tell. > betcha > mike > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I knew > > about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not > least > > because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! > There > > may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > > functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, > THAT I > > would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > suggests, > > an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > connection > > ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on Ruqaiya). > > Henry > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > > > "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > > Vygotsky's > > > theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too > > > narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > > Vygotsky > > > himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > meanings > > > develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their > > > wordings do. > > > > > > I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll > miss > > > her. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell > > wrote: > > > > > >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have > > >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a > > great > > >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and > > Marx. > > >> > > >> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > >> > > >> Phil Chappell > > >> > > >> Dear SFL Friends > > >> > > >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > suddenly > > >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the > > stress > > >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > > >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > > >> beforehand. > > >> > > >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is > > doing > > >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know > > he > > >> would be. > > >> > > >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time > and > > >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they > are > > >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > > celebrate > > >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the > > year > > >> at Macquarie University. > > >> > > >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary > > >> friend to so many people around the world. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> Geoff Williams > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jun 25 16:50:43 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:50:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the starter kit, David. Seems like you and Phil are putting the process into motion. Speaking personally, it would be helpful to read through/discuss one "lesson" at a time. My life is sufficiently fractionated to make it difficult to both read and write on so much at one time, I will lose my way. Might it be possible to create a "syllabus" and some sort of rough time line? Or is it just me and people need to grok the whole before they can take in the parts? mike On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:54 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative > Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along the > lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less the > same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another thing > to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far the > best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a good > lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > structure: > > https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > David Kellogg > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > Hi Henry > > > > The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. > > Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > > > The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located > in > > one particular part > > of them. THEY have to self organize. > > > > You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > > optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a > > starting point. > > > > Time will tell. > > betcha > > mike > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > > > I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I > knew > > > about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not > > least > > > because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! > > There > > > may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > > > functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, > > THAT I > > > would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > > suggests, > > > an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > > connection > > > ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > Ruqaiya). > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > > > > "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > > > Vygotsky's > > > > theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus > too > > > > narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > > > Vygotsky > > > > himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > > meanings > > > > develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > their > > > > wordings do. > > > > > > > > I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll > > miss > > > > her. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even > have > > > >> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was > a > > > great > > > >> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and > > > Marx. > > > >> > > > >> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > > >> > > > >> Phil Chappell > > > >> > > > >> Dear SFL Friends > > > >> > > > >> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > > suddenly > > > >> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the > > > stress > > > >> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > > > >> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > > > >> beforehand. > > > >> > > > >> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is > > > doing > > > >> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you > know > > > he > > > >> would be. > > > >> > > > >> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time > > and > > > >> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they > > are > > > >> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > > > celebrate > > > >> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the > > > year > > > >> at Macquarie University. > > > >> > > > >> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > extraordinary > > > >> friend to so many people around the world. > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Geoff Williams > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > > -- All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* From philchappell@mac.com Thu Jun 25 00:50:58 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:50:58 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: <37E97C24-B78A-4970-8E3E-4D04D8EAE7FD@mac.com> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. I'm sad to pass this message on. Phil Chappell Dear SFL Friends With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time beforehand. I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he would be. There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year at Macquarie University. A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary friend to so many people around the world. Best regards, Geoff Williams From philchappell@mac.com Thu Jun 25 00:59:36 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:59:36 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a great advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and Marx. I'm sad to pass this message on. Phil Chappell Dear SFL Friends With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away suddenly yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the stress of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time beforehand. I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is doing well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know he would be. There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time and date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they are available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to celebrate Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the year at Macquarie University. A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary friend to so many people around the world. Best regards, Geoff Williams From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 21:59:52 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:59:52 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> David, I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be an abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see yet the connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can help there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my response might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? Henry > On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative > Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along the > lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less the > same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another thing > to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far the > best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a good > lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > structure: > > https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > David Kellogg > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >> Hi Henry >> >> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. >> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >> >> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located in >> one particular part >> of them. THEY have to self organize. >> >> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very >> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a >> starting point. >> >> Time will tell. >> betcha >> mike >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I knew >>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not >> least >>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! >> There >>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic >>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, >> THAT I >>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike >> suggests, >>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >> connection >>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on Ruqaiya). >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to >>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>> Vygotsky's >>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too >>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As >>> Vygotsky >>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word >> meanings >>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when their >>>> wordings do. >>>> >>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll >> miss >>>> her. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have >>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a >>> great >>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and >>> Marx. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>> >>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>> >>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>> >>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >> suddenly >>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the >>> stress >>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time >>>>> beforehand. >>>>> >>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is >>> doing >>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you know >>> he >>>>> would be. >>>>> >>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time >> and >>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they >> are >>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to >>> celebrate >>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the >>> year >>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>> >>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary >>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 00:08:47 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:08:47 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, Henry. I'm not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose main relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to the extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff of a graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie (e.g. Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I think the only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just start some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command the respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You did ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the link to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for most people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than you and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on fairy tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance of a much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was working out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" (orientation, complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces all narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. Lukin's lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read Ruqaiyah. Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very charming interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you were speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were going to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public speaker: she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole was necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of Ruqaiyah's best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the end, and then... Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really stopped; I think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to practice. David Kellogg On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be an > abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see yet the > connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can help > there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my response > might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? > Henry > > > > On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative > > Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along > the > > lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > > > One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > > discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > > > Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less the > > same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another thing > > to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far the > > best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > > > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > > > If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a good > > lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > > structure: > > > > https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > >> Hi Henry > >> > >> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. > >> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >> > >> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located > in > >> one particular part > >> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >> > >> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > >> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a > >> starting point. > >> > >> Time will tell. > >> betcha > >> mike > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > >> > >>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I > knew > >>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not > >> least > >>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! > >> There > >>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > >>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, > >> THAT I > >>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > >> suggests, > >>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > >> connection > >>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > Ruqaiya). > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > >>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > >>> Vygotsky's > >>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too > >>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > >> meanings > >>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > their > >>>> wordings do. > >>>> > >>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll > >> miss > >>>> her. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have > >>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a > >>> great > >>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and > >>> Marx. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>> > >>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>> > >>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > >> suddenly > >>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the > >>> stress > >>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > >>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > >>>>> beforehand. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is > >>> doing > >>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you > know > >>> he > >>>>> would be. > >>>>> > >>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time > >> and > >>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they > >> are > >>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > >>> celebrate > >>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the > >>> year > >>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>> > >>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary > >>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > >> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > >> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > >> > > > From philchappell@mac.com Fri Jun 26 03:06:13 2015 From: philchappell@mac.com (Phil Chappell) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:06:13 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Ruqaiya Hasan's work Message-ID: <61D61743-762F-4C71-878C-4E95589CF29A@mac.com> We had a couple of very successful seminars at Macquarie in 2012 and 2013 exploring context and the SFL concept of register. Ruqaiya Hasan and Michael Halliday were both central to these seminars. Colleague Annabelle Lukin has archived some of the talks at the following sites: http://www.annabellelukin.com/register-and-context-at-vimeo.html http://www.annabellelukin.com/ruqaiya-hasan.html Ruqaiya's work, and the occasional direct conversations I had with her, emboldened me as an educator interested in linguistics. I'm sharing a short snippet of a long email she wrote to me way back in 2006 that has fuelled my ongoing interest in the quadripartite of scholars she mentions. "Brain/consciousness is not static, but it does mean that structures of inequality are mentally supported by all of us UNLESS we become aware of this Marxist-Bernsteinian-Vygotskian-Hallidayan perspective and try hard to look at our own actions, reflections and interactions to see what role we play in creating/supporting hegemonic attitudes." (Hasan, personal communication) Regards Phil Chappell From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 07:20:10 2015 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:20:10 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] managerialism in academia: a critique of "against students" Message-ID: >From time to time on this listserv, I've seen posts about the struggles of working within the shifting politics of academia. This morning I came across a post by Sara Ahmed: "Against students": http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/. In it, Ahmed takes on: - The phenomenon, rearing its head again recently, of professors feeling censored by students and the culture of "identity politics" in higher education - The tendency of some academics to feel a nostalgia for a past that they see as characterized by perfect freedom and pursuit of ideas - The issue of trigger warnings in college classrooms, and the critique of students as being "oversensitive" - The challenge of addressing issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment in academia This article is a brilliant feminist critique of dominant discourses around these issues, and in my view well worth a read, and a discussion, by members of this listserv. -- Jacob (Jenna) McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 07:20:10 2015 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:20:10 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] managerialism in academia: a critique of "against students" Message-ID: >From time to time on this listserv, I've seen posts about the struggles of working within the shifting politics of academia. This morning I came across a post by Sara Ahmed: "Against students": http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/. In it, Ahmed takes on: - The phenomenon, rearing its head again recently, of professors feeling censored by students and the culture of "identity politics" in higher education - The tendency of some academics to feel a nostalgia for a past that they see as characterized by perfect freedom and pursuit of ideas - The issue of trigger warnings in college classrooms, and the critique of students as being "oversensitive" - The challenge of addressing issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment in academia This article is a brilliant feminist critique of dominant discourses around these issues, and in my view well worth a read, and a discussion, by members of this listserv. -- Jacob (Jenna) McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com From smago@uga.edu Fri Jun 26 08:51:42 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:51:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: managerialism in academia: a critique of "against students" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacob, thanks for sharing this provocative piece. It would take a week to address many of the points, so I'll confine myself to one that follows from a gross overgeneralization about university faculty in this essay. That is not to say that there aren't many spot-on points worthy of development. But I think that there's a clarification that's critical to make here. (I'm copying this note to Ahmed as well.) The author writes: All of these ways of making students into the problem work to create a picture of professors or academics as the ones who are ?really? oppressed by students. This is what it means to articulate a position or a view ?against students.? One US professor speaks of being ?frightened? by his liberal students. He blames so much on ?identity politics.? And indeed so much is blamed on identity politics: that term is used whenever we challenge how spaces are occupied. It has become another easy dismissal. We are learning here about professors (their investments, emotions and strategies of dismissal) more than we are learning about students. I think I know the "one US professor" essay to which she refers to here. I can't find it, but the author was a vulnerable faculty member--untenured or temporary (adjunct, etc.). Sara Ahmed (the author of the essay Jake forwarded) presents university faculty as monolithic, tenured, and hierarchical in relation to students. But the "one US professor" was none of the above (though a male). His concern was that if he didn't pander to students, he'd get bad evaluations and not be rehired. That's quite a different kettle of fish from the secure, predatory professors Ahmed suggests characterize the profession. If anything, the neoliberal model is replacing tenured faculty with less secure, more easily terminated teachers who work on annual or by-the-course contracts. I think that their concerns are worth listening to, along with those of students. All this is NOT an endorsement of callous, predatory professors, of whom I've met too many in my 25 years in higher education (and many before that in my studies). Rather, it's a clarification of what I consider to be one important misrepresentation by Ahmed. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob McWilliams Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 10:20 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture Activity; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] managerialism in academia: a critique of "against students" >From time to time on this listserv, I've seen posts about the struggles >of working within the shifting politics of academia. This morning I came across a post by Sara Ahmed: "Against students": http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/. In it, Ahmed takes on: - The phenomenon, rearing its head again recently, of professors feeling censored by students and the culture of "identity politics" in higher education - The tendency of some academics to feel a nostalgia for a past that they see as characterized by perfect freedom and pursuit of ideas - The issue of trigger warnings in college classrooms, and the critique of students as being "oversensitive" - The challenge of addressing issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment in academia This article is a brilliant feminist critique of dominant discourses around these issues, and in my view well worth a read, and a discussion, by members of this listserv. -- Jacob (Jenna) McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 11:45:34 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:45:34 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are right, David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya seems to be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a theory of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems to come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very gap is why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me under her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive grammar and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but I think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said about Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the lack of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. Rosch). If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t mean that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and cognitive psychology. Just saying. Henry P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It brings her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, whoever contributes. > On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, Henry. I'm > not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose main > relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to the > extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff of a > graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be > probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie (e.g. > Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I think the > only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just start > some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command the > respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You did > ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the link > to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for most > people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be > inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than you > and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on fairy > tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance of a > much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was working > out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" (orientation, > complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces all > narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. Lukin's > lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read Ruqaiyah. > > Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very charming > interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you were > speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were going > to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public speaker: > she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was > always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole was > necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make > sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of Ruqaiyah's > best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the end, and > then... > > Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really stopped; I > think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to practice. > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> David, >> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be an >> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see yet the >> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can help >> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my response >> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? >> Henry >> >> >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative >>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along >> the >>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>> >>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>> >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>> >>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less the >>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another thing >>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far the >>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>> >>> >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>> >>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a good >>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>> structure: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Henry >>>> >>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a production. >>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>> >>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not located >> in >>>> one particular part >>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>> >>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very >>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a >>>> starting point. >>>> >>>> Time will tell. >>>> betcha >>>> mike >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I >> knew >>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not >>>> least >>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! >>>> There >>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic >>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, >>>> THAT I >>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike >>>> suggests, >>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>> connection >>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >> Ruqaiya). >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to >>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus too >>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As >>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word >>>> meanings >>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when >> their >>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll >>>> miss >>>>>> her. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even have >>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She was a >>>>> great >>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and >>>>> Marx. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>> suddenly >>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the >>>>> stress >>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time >>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he is >>>>> doing >>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you >> know >>>>> he >>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The time >>>> and >>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they >>>> are >>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to >>>>> celebrate >>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in the >>>>> year >>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an extraordinary >>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>> >> >> >> From carolmacdon@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 12:36:17 2015 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:36:17 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> Message-ID: Fellow XMCA-ers Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in fact there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to use. Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but knowing the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to it, and it would have been good. So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to develop one. Best Carol On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are right, > David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s > contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya seems to > be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a theory > of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems to > come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just > something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that > needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very gap is > why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera > John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me under > her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive grammar > and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but I > think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said about > Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with > cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the lack > of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. > Rosch). > > If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that > includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t mean > that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and > cognitive psychology. Just saying. > > Henry > > P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It brings > her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, > whoever contributes. > > > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, Henry. > I'm > > not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose main > > relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > > rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to the > > extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff of a > > graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > > participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be > > probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie (e.g. > > Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > > > Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I think > the > > only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just > start > > some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command the > > respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You > did > > ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the > link > > to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for > most > > people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > > > But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be > > inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than you > > and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on > fairy > > tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance > of a > > much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was working > > out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" (orientation, > > complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces all > > narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. Lukin's > > lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read Ruqaiyah. > > > > Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very charming > > interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you were > > speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were > going > > to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > > eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public > speaker: > > she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was > > always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole > was > > necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make > > sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of Ruqaiyah's > > best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the end, > and > > then... > > > > Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really stopped; > I > > think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to practice. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > >> David, > >> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > >> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > >> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be > an > >> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see yet > the > >> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can > help > >> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my > response > >> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>> > >>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative > >>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, along > >> the > >>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>> > >>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > >>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>> > >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>> > >>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less > the > >>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another > thing > >>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far > the > >>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>> > >>> > >> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>> > >>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a > good > >>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > >>> structure: > >>> > >>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Henry > >>>> > >>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > production. > >>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>> > >>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not > located > >> in > >>>> one particular part > >>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>> > >>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > >>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as a > >>>> starting point. > >>>> > >>>> Time will tell. > >>>> betcha > >>>> mike > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I > >> knew > >>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. Not > >>>> least > >>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: Grammar! > >>>> There > >>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > >>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to Vygotsky, > >>>> THAT I > >>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > >>>> suggests, > >>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > >>>> connection > >>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > >> Ruqaiya). > >>>>> Henry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > >>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > >>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus > too > >>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > >>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > >>>> meanings > >>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > >> their > >>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next month--I'll > >>>> miss > >>>>>> her. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even > have > >>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She > was a > >>>>> great > >>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein and > >>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > >>>> suddenly > >>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by the > >>>>> stress > >>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > >>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some time > >>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he > is > >>>>> doing > >>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you > >> know > >>>>> he > >>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The > time > >>>> and > >>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when they > >>>> are > >>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > >>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in > the > >>>>> year > >>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > extraordinary > >>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > >>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > >>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 12:53:01 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:53:01 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: managerialism in academia: a critique of "against students" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The title seems to be lacking something about sexual harassment. Is there a claim that this all that is wrong with academia? That, unfortunately, would be quite good news... Addressing the title, it seems to me that a significant problem related to academia is that it is largely supported by institutions. These institutions arrange for "students" to do "research" and are provided with "supervision". Therein, one has all the ingredients for a thriving culture of Orwellian doublespeak fuelled by NDPB and related revenue streams. So, yes, the problem is with students. What students should do is stop allowing themselves to be treated as "students" and start doing research! Best, Huw On 26 June 2015 at 16:51, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Jacob, thanks for sharing this provocative piece. It would take a week to > address many of the points, so I'll confine myself to one that follows from > a gross overgeneralization about university faculty in this essay. That is > not to say that there aren't many spot-on points worthy of development. But > I think that there's a clarification that's critical to make here. (I'm > copying this note to Ahmed as well.) > > The author writes: All of these ways of making students into the problem > work to create a picture of professors or academics as the ones who are > ?really? oppressed by students. This is what it means to articulate a > position or a view ?against students.? One US professor speaks of being > ?frightened? by his liberal students. He blames so much on ?identity > politics.? And indeed so much is blamed on identity politics: that term is > used whenever we challenge how spaces are occupied. It has become another > easy dismissal. We are learning here about professors (their investments, > emotions and strategies of dismissal) more than we are learning about > students. > > I think I know the "one US professor" essay to which she refers to here. I > can't find it, but the author was a vulnerable faculty member--untenured or > temporary (adjunct, etc.). Sara Ahmed (the author of the essay Jake > forwarded) presents university faculty as monolithic, tenured, and > hierarchical in relation to students. But the "one US professor" was none > of the above (though a male). His concern was that if he didn't pander to > students, he'd get bad evaluations and not be rehired. That's quite a > different kettle of fish from the secure, predatory professors Ahmed > suggests characterize the profession. If anything, the neoliberal model is > replacing tenured faculty with less secure, more easily terminated teachers > who work on annual or by-the-course contracts. I think that their concerns > are worth listening to, along with those of students. > > All this is NOT an endorsement of callous, predatory professors, of whom > I've met too many in my 25 years in higher education (and many before that > in my studies). Rather, it's a clarification of what I consider to be one > important misrepresentation by Ahmed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob > McWilliams > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 10:20 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture Activity; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] managerialism in academia: a critique of "against > students" > > >From time to time on this listserv, I've seen posts about the struggles > >of > working within the shifting politics of academia. > > This morning I came across a post by Sara Ahmed: "Against students": > http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/06/25/against-students/. > > In it, Ahmed takes on: > > - The phenomenon, rearing its head again recently, of professors feeling > censored by students and the culture of "identity politics" in higher > education > - The tendency of some academics to feel a nostalgia for a past that > they see as characterized by perfect freedom and pursuit of ideas > - The issue of trigger warnings in college classrooms, and the critique > of students as being "oversensitive" > - The challenge of addressing issues of sex discrimination and sexual > harassment in academia > > > This article is a brilliant feminist critique of dominant discourses > around these issues, and in my view well worth a read, and a discussion, by > members of this listserv. > > > -- > > > Jacob (Jenna) McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of > Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 14:55:52 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:55:52 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that had been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when I was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of that universalist rationalist spirit: a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any principled distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole wording. Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words are learned; grammar develops. Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than universal "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something different in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" always means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have already learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular noun you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical metaphor, etc. I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it means that we now have an extremely important and precise means for distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area which Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that the Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it was a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely structural view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find between phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at the time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than the kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able to describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working to put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time much more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have approved. David Kellogg David Kellogg a) On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald wrote: > Fellow XMCA-ers > > Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 > hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in fact > there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for > focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that > why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to > use. > > Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but knowing > the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to it, > and it would have been good. > > So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to > develop one. > > Best > > Carol > > On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are right, > > David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s > > contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya seems > to > > be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a theory > > of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems to > > come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just > > something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that > > needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very gap > is > > why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera > > John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me under > > her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive > grammar > > and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but I > > think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said > about > > Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with > > cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the > lack > > of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. > > Rosch). > > > > If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that > > includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t mean > > that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and > > cognitive psychology. Just saying. > > > > Henry > > > > P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It brings > > her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, > > whoever contributes. > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, Henry. > > I'm > > > not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose main > > > relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > > > rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to > the > > > extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff > of a > > > graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > > > participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be > > > probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie (e.g. > > > Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > > > > > Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I think > > the > > > only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just > > start > > > some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command the > > > respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You > > did > > > ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the > > link > > > to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for > > most > > > people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > > > > > But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be > > > inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than > you > > > and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on > > fairy > > > tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance > > of a > > > much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was > working > > > out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > (orientation, > > > complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces all > > > narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. Lukin's > > > lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > Ruqaiyah. > > > > > > Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very charming > > > interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you were > > > speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were > > going > > > to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > > > eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public > > speaker: > > > she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was > > > always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole > > was > > > necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make > > > sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of Ruqaiyah's > > > best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the end, > > and > > > then... > > > > > > Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > stopped; > > I > > > think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > practice. > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > > > > >> David, > > >> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > > >> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > > >> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be > > an > > >> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see > yet > > the > > >> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can > > help > > >> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my > > response > > >> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? > > >> Henry > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative > > >>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, > along > > >> the > > >>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > >>> > > >>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > > >>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > >>> > > >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > >>> > > >>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less > > the > > >>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another > > thing > > >>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far > > the > > >>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > >>> > > >>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a > > good > > >>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > > >>> structure: > > >>> > > >>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Henry > > >>>> > > >>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > > production. > > >>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > >>>> > > >>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not > > located > > >> in > > >>>> one particular part > > >>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > > >>>> > > >>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > > >>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as > a > > >>>> starting point. > > >>>> > > >>>> Time will tell. > > >>>> betcha > > >>>> mike > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I > > >> knew > > >>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. > Not > > >>>> least > > >>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > Grammar! > > >>>> There > > >>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > > >>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > Vygotsky, > > >>>> THAT I > > >>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > > >>>> suggests, > > >>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > > >>>> connection > > >>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > > >> Ruqaiya). > > >>>>> Henry > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to > > >>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > > >>>>> Vygotsky's > > >>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus > > too > > >>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > > >>>>> Vygotsky > > >>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > > >>>> meanings > > >>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > > >> their > > >>>>>> wordings do. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > month--I'll > > >>>> miss > > >>>>>> her. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > > philchappell@mac.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even > > have > > >>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She > > was a > > >>>>> great > > >>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein > and > > >>>>> Marx. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Phil Chappell > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > > >>>> suddenly > > >>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by > the > > >>>>> stress > > >>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > > >>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some > time > > >>>>>>> beforehand. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he > > is > > >>>>> doing > > >>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you > > >> know > > >>>>> he > > >>>>>>> would be. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The > > time > > >>>> and > > >>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when > they > > >>>> are > > >>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > > >>>>> celebrate > > >>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in > > the > > >>>>> year > > >>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > > extraordinary > > >>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>>> Geoff Williams > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > > >>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something > > >>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > Developmental psycholinguist > Academic, Researcher, and Editor > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 22:39:50 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:39:50 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to ?arbitrary? when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is an important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to be a useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. Henry > On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. > Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that had > been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was > eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I > tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when I > was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of > that universalist rationalist spirit: > > a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, > spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, > subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any principled > distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages > express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole > wording. > > Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we > use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical > foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like > Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words are > learned; grammar develops. > > Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them > to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional > relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than universal > "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something different > in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" always > means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a > "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional > relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). > > Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general > meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that > vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar > develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, > precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you > acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will > transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have already > learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular noun > you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical > metaphor, etc. > > I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it means > that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area which > Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of > word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. > > Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally > linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria > organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that the > Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it was > a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > > But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a > series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an > ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In > the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: > Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely structural > view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was > carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable > barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of > "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find between > phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at the > time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than the > kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able to > describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. > > Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly > endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and > Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about > morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some > places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of > Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the > English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. > when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of > language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative > psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working to > put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time much > more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have > approved. > > David Kellogg > > > David Kellogg > > a) > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald > wrote: > >> Fellow XMCA-ers >> >> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 >> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in fact >> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for >> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that >> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to >> use. >> >> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but knowing >> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to it, >> and it would have been good. >> >> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >> develop one. >> >> Best >> >> Carol >> >> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >>> >>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are right, >>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya seems >> to >>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a theory >>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems to >>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that >>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very gap >> is >>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me under >>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >> grammar >>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but I >>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >> about >>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >> lack >>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. >>> Rosch). >>> >>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t mean >>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and >>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It brings >>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, >>> whoever contributes. >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, Henry. >>> I'm >>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose main >>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >> the >>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >> of a >>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be >>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie (e.g. >>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>> >>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I think >>> the >>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>> start >>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command the >>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You >>> did >>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the >>> link >>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for >>> most >>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>> >>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be >>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than >> you >>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on >>> fairy >>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance >>> of a >>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >> working >>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >> (orientation, >>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces all >>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. Lukin's >>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >> Ruqaiyah. >>>> >>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very charming >>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you were >>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were >>> going >>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>> speaker: >>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was >>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole >>> was >>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make >>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of Ruqaiyah's >>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the end, >>> and >>>> then... >>>> >>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >> stopped; >>> I >>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >> practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to be >>> an >>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >> yet >>> the >>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can >>> help >>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>> response >>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a commemorative >>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >> along >>>>> the >>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>> >>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less >>> the >>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another >>> thing >>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by far >>> the >>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a >>> good >>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>> structure: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>> production. >>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>> located >>>>> in >>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very >>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as >> a >>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little I >>>>> knew >>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. >> Not >>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >> Grammar! >>>>>>> There >>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic >>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >> Vygotsky, >>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike >>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out to >>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to focus >>> too >>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As >>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word >>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when >>>>> their >>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >> month--I'll >>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even >>> have >>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She >>> was a >>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein >> and >>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by >> the >>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >> time >>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that he >>> is >>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as you >>>>> know >>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The >>> time >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >> they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to >>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in >>> the >>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see something >>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >> Developmental psycholinguist >> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 01:41:39 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:41:39 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is ever present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: https://vimeo.com/13550409 Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like Children, Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her "exotropic theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, who was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some people were somehow less intelligent than others. Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". Some of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. David Kellogg On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the > term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to ?arbitrary? > when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is an > important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to be a > useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > Henry > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. > > Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > > Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that > had > > been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was > > eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I > > tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when > I > > was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > > contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of > > that universalist rationalist spirit: > > > > a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, > > spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > > b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, > > subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > > c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > principled > > distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages > > express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole > > wording. > > > > Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we > > use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical > > foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like > > Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words > are > > learned; grammar develops. > > > > Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > > essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them > > to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional > > relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than > universal > > "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > different > > in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" > always > > means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a > > "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > > closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional > > relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). > > > > Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general > > meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that > > vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar > > develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, > > precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you > > acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will > > transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have > already > > learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular > noun > > you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical > > metaphor, etc. > > > > I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it > means > > that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > > distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area > which > > Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of > > word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. > > > > Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally > > linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria > > organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > > references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > > lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that > the > > Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it > was > > a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > > linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > > > > But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a > > series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an > > ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In > > the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: > > Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > structural > > view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was > > carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable > > barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of > > "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find > between > > phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at > the > > time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than > the > > kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able > to > > describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. > > > > Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly > > endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and > > Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about > > morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some > > places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of > > Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the > > English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. > > when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > > > I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of > > language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative > > psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working > to > > put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time > much > > more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have > > approved. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > a) > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald > > wrote: > > > >> Fellow XMCA-ers > >> > >> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 > >> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in > fact > >> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for > >> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that > >> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to > >> use. > >> > >> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but > knowing > >> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to > it, > >> and it would have been good. > >> > >> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to > >> develop one. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are > right, > >>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s > >>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya > seems > >> to > >>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a > theory > >>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems > to > >>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just > >>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that > >>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very > gap > >> is > >>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera > >>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me > under > >>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive > >> grammar > >>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but > I > >>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said > >> about > >>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with > >>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the > >> lack > >>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. > >>> Rosch). > >>> > >>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that > >>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t > mean > >>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and > >>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > >>> > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It > brings > >>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, > >>> whoever contributes. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, > Henry. > >>> I'm > >>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose > main > >>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > >>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to > >> the > >>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff > >> of a > >>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > >>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be > >>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie > (e.g. > >>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > >>>> > >>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I > think > >>> the > >>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just > >>> start > >>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command > the > >>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You > >>> did > >>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the > >>> link > >>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for > >>> most > >>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > >>>> > >>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be > >>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than > >> you > >>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on > >>> fairy > >>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance > >>> of a > >>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was > >> working > >>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > >> (orientation, > >>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces > all > >>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. > Lukin's > >>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > >> Ruqaiyah. > >>>> > >>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very > charming > >>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you > were > >>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were > >>> going > >>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > >>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public > >>> speaker: > >>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was > >>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole > >>> was > >>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make > >>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > Ruqaiyah's > >>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the > end, > >>> and > >>>> then... > >>>> > >>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > >> stopped; > >>> I > >>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > >> practice. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> David, > >>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > >>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > >>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to > be > >>> an > >>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see > >> yet > >>> the > >>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can > >>> help > >>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my > >>> response > >>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? > >>>>> Henry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > commemorative > >>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, > >> along > >>>>> the > >>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > >>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less > >>> the > >>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another > >>> thing > >>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by > far > >>> the > >>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a > >>> good > >>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > >>>>>> structure: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Henry > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > >>> production. > >>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not > >>> located > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> one particular part > >>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > >>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as > >> a > >>>>>>> starting point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Time will tell. > >>>>>>> betcha > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little > I > >>>>> knew > >>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. > >> Not > >>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > >> Grammar! > >>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > >>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > >> Vygotsky, > >>>>>>> THAT I > >>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > >>>>>>> suggests, > >>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > >>>>>>> connection > >>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > >>>>> Ruqaiya). > >>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out > to > >>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to > focus > >>> too > >>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > >>>>>>> meanings > >>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > >>>>> their > >>>>>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > >> month--I'll > >>>>>>> miss > >>>>>>>>> her. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > >>> philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even > >>> have > >>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She > >>> was a > >>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein > >> and > >>>>>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > >>>>>>> suddenly > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by > >> the > >>>>>>>> stress > >>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some > >> time > >>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that > he > >>> is > >>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as > you > >>>>> know > >>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The > >>> time > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when > >> they > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > >>>>>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in > >>> the > >>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > >>> extraordinary > >>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > >>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > something > >>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >> Developmental psycholinguist > >> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >> > > > From daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 04:30:56 2015 From: daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com (Daniel Hyman) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE11C@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE154@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <001501d09e5b$f771b060$e6551120$@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9BCE416@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi, all - More thread-fodder (ouch) about music online, sorted / assorted / unsorted: http://nyti.ms/1QXETvb Cheers and enjoy, Daniel On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Hyman wrote: > Michael, > > Staccato can be clear and distinct; it has an undeserved bad rap for > harshness that to my ear is a separate thing (color not articulation). So > your staccato comments were well taken. > > While an undergrad at Indiana U/Bloomington, I was introduced to Schenker > as a master of analysis. He viewed the large-scale harmonic and melodic > planning of works, as the reverse process of ornamentation/elaboration. So > we would keep simplifying the structures of, say, a sonata, over longer and > longer time scales, to reduce from a fully worked-out movement down to > basic scale-step and chord progressions. If calling that hermeneutics isn't > helpful (though I have seen that done in recent literature on Schenker) the > term analysis suits just as well. What I was really trying to do was to > draw a distinction between "interpretation" as performing musicians, > dancers, builders, and cooks know it, adding complexity and depth to a > plan, and "interpretation" as a theatergoer might attend Macbeth and come > away with the reductive insight ("moral") that unbridled ambition can do > great harm. > > As to personal ownership of creative works, that's a simpler question with > a poem written in solitude, than with a symphony or opera or film. The > latter type can be imagined by one person, but not fully realized or > communicated without large and skilled teams. (One of the common reasons > for those awful reviews of premieres, is that the performances fall far > short of the composer's intentions. Patience, effort and luck in abundance > are often needed for a work to ever be performed a second time.) We are > both social creatures and individuals. Pigeonholing a creator as either one > or the other can distort the creative process. > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Hyman > wrote: > >> Larry, >> >> A pleasure to share ideas about music and how people experience it. I >> have to think through most of your post, still, but as to Brahms: a classic >> quote of his, "first ideas are good - they come from God." First ideas >> were, inherently, not what he published (or ultimately, burned). By the >> time he had worked through a piece and could present it, what he sent was >> his work. However, he famously collaborated with colleagues (e.g., Joseph >> Joachim about the Violin Concerto) and studied the works of forebears in >> great detail. And his idiom and materials were clearly in the air of his >> time. >> >> His scores, blueprints to use a metaphor instead of a buzzword, were >> about as intentional as any composer's were, ever. Their contents, syntax, >> and working-out were part of the shared understanding of his time. By the >> time the Fourth Symphony was performed, the conductor and players did their >> own work to make it come alive. So by the time the audience heard it, many >> people had joined forces to convey it. In that context, I'm not sure what >> the question about personal ownership really means. >> >> It being dinnertime in Kiev, message adjourned for now; be well! >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote: >> >>> Daniel, >>> Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is >>> happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are >>> rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme >>> while >>> remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression >>> and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed" >>> [not >>> merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a >>> traditional theme] >>> THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground, >>> receding >>> to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as >>> "musical hermeneutics" >>> >>> As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of >>> OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING >>> REVEALED >>> and then next becoming synthesized. It seems more like an enveloping >>> movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or >>> back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing >>> extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft. >>> >>> When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE? >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Michael, Daniel, >>> > >>> > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the >>> > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities. >>> > Michael wrote: >>> > >>> > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to >>> maintain >>> > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme - >>> that >>> > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between >>> Lewin's >>> > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions." It is the Internet that >>> helped >>> > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas >>> > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than >>> supports >>> > our mission" >>> > >>> > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern >>> > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is >>> > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed. >>> > >>> > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought >>> > provoking: >>> > >>> > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and >>> meaning in >>> > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in >>> clouds >>> > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when >>> > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people >>> > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something >>> to do >>> > with making meaningful connections happen" >>> > >>> > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek >>> them >>> > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT" The >>> > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS >>> A >>> > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions" >>> but >>> > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME. >>> > >>> > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for >>> such >>> > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds" >>> > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and >>> > "created". >>> > >>> > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the >>> individual >>> > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions >>> that >>> > "run through" THEMES. >>> > >>> > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found >>> "link" >>> > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and >>> > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that >>> > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES. >>> > >>> > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post >>> on >>> > "chess" and movement of the pieces constrained and contained by >>> NECESSITY >>> > within THE "progressions" on a "theme". This question of temporality >>> and >>> > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event >>> time >>> > that are LINKED. >>> > >>> > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and >>> > feeling [for moods] should have something to do [and say] with making >>> > meaning connections happen. >>> > >>> > I would add a question exploring "progressions" as having various >>> > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent". >>> > >>> > Progressions may include BOTH spatial connections and temporal >>> > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example - >>> > >>> > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional >>> > time and space which is the more common sense experience of >>> > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are >>> invisible >>> > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the >>> foregoround >>> > >>> > AND >>> > >>> > * "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character" >>> or >>> > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative >>> > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that >>> "show >>> > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic >>> expressions >>> > happening in the "moment". >>> > >>> > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these >>> various >>> > pro-gressions [in time and space]? >>> > >>> > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and >>> not >>> > mere cacophony. >>> > >>> > Larry >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman < >>> daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, Michael - >>> >> >>> >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I >>> >> think I'm a little closer to grasping your point. >>> >> >>> >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels >>> >> between >>> >> music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an >>> >> experience, >>> >> hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context, >>> skill, >>> >> refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of >>> value. >>> >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to >>> >> understanding and enjoyment. >>> >> >>> >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the >>> >> music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well >>> beyond >>> >> the >>> >> idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of >>> wine, of >>> >> all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same >>> industrial >>> >> network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for >>> white, >>> >> I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that >>> Spotify's >>> >> concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for >>> classical >>> >> music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any >>> >> classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not. >>> >> >>> >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used L?ndler (country waltzes) >>> in >>> >> their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in >>> his >>> >> B >>> >> Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while >>> >> great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to >>> >> consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George >>> >> Gershwin's >>> >> "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church >>> >> composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned >>> >> counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries >>> if >>> >> not >>> >> millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having >>> >> meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally >>> >> constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to >>> >> sample the connections described in the article. But these music >>> >> distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems >>> >> pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician. >>> >> >>> >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and >>> meaning in >>> >> them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in >>> clouds >>> >> and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even >>> when >>> >> there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that >>> people >>> >> with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something >>> to >>> >> do >>> >> with making meaningful connections happen. >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael < >>> glassman.13@osu.edu> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting, >>> >> > >>> >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down >>> what >>> >> > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle. That >>> often >>> >> > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research >>> >> > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a >>> >> theme. I >>> >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really >>> >> > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already >>> exists >>> >> and >>> >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory. But by >>> allowing >>> >> > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas >>> they >>> >> > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence. >>> If you >>> >> > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord >>> >> progression >>> >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it >>> makes >>> >> the >>> >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable. The few times I >>> have >>> >> > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was >>> >> > thrilling. It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or >>> >> > tribalism. And I have been wondering if the Internet will break >>> much of >>> >> > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands >>> of >>> >> the >>> >> > user. Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking >>> >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different >>> directions. >>> >> How >>> >> > much is too much? What is the right balance between the centripetal >>> >> forces >>> >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet >>> and >>> >> the >>> >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users. >>> >> > >>> >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over >>> the >>> >> last >>> >> > few weeks. For a number of reasons I have been looking into this >>> new >>> >> (or >>> >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments. I think some people >>> on >>> >> this >>> >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it. But for the life of me >>> I >>> >> can >>> >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and >>> Lewin's >>> >> et. >>> >> > al.'s early action research approach. And reading Cobb's original >>> 2001 >>> >> > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic >>> (I'm >>> >> > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a >>> Cliff >>> >> > notes of Dewey's book). Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem >>> to be >>> >> > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these >>> are >>> >> > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by >>> understanding >>> >> the >>> >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's >>> "progressions." >>> >> > It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but >>> when >>> >> > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound >>> >> that >>> >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission. >>> >> > >>> >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on >>> >> Spottify >>> >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the >>> thrill >>> >> of >>> >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web >>> >> (forgive >>> >> > the pun)? How do we navigate it? >>> >> > >>> >> > Michael >>> >> > >>> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman= >>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>> >> On >>> >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman >>> >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM >>> >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >>> >> > >>> >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted >>> to >>> >> see >>> >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty >>> >> questions >>> >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or >>> >> parsing >>> >> > them out would be much appreciated. >>> >> > >>> >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught >>> from a >>> >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It >>> >> intersperses >>> >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches, >>> gospel, >>> >> > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention >>> of >>> >> > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are >>> >> > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I >>> do >>> >> > glean is more along the following lines: >>> >> > >>> >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice, >>> >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody >>> (unless >>> >> > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one >>> >> looks >>> >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and >>> piano/banjo/guitar, >>> >> > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once. >>> Those >>> >> > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the >>> others >>> >> fit >>> >> > into or around. >>> >> > >>> >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet, >>> >> opera, >>> >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat >>> govern >>> >> the >>> >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in >>> >> churches, >>> >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace. >>> Listen to >>> >> > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not >>> wholly >>> >> > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers >>> Awake". The >>> >> > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives / >>> >> descendants >>> >> > are usually considered within that family. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous >>> for >>> >> > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and >>> >> > performance to performance. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thoughts? >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson < >>> >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Hi! I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General >>> >> > > Systems Theory. >>> >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to >>> write a >>> >> > > well-developed thought this time, either. >>> >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of >>> the >>> >> > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a >>> >> > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see >>> that >>> >> > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks >>> out >>> >> > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally >>> get >>> >> > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties." >>> >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal. >>> >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here. >>> >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with >>> >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas >>> Michael >>> >> > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the >>> progression >>> >> of >>> >> > chords. >>> >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread) >>> >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone" >>> sets up, >>> >> > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone... >>> >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left >>> >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized >>> >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions! >>> >> > > >>> >> > > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >> [mailto: >>> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >>> Behalf >>> >> Of >>> >> > > Glassman, Michael >>> >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43 >>> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Hi Huw, >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so. I >>> wonder >>> >> > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Michael >>> >> > > >>> >> > > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto: >>> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of Huw >>> >> > > Lloyd >>> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM >>> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created >>> >> > > >>> >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an >>> abeyance >>> >> > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and >>> that >>> >> > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity >>> >> > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an >>> >> > orientation. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Huw >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly >>> interesting >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se >>> >> > > > es >>> >> > > > >>> -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click >>> >> > > > &p >>> >> > > > >>> gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=to >>> >> > > > p- >>> >> > > > news&_r=0 >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life >>> >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I >>> don't >>> >> > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her >>> >> > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media >>> >> > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some >>> >> > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the >>> >> > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the >>> ways the >>> >> > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can >>> understand. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer >>> going >>> >> > > > through different types of music as a stream - I wonder though >>> if >>> >> > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened >>> closely >>> >> > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different >>> >> > directions. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my >>> >> > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its >>> developing >>> >> > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap >>> back >>> >> > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from >>> >> > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all. >>> >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other, >>> >> > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category >>> >> > > > boundaries. The steaming music phenomenon makes these >>> boundaries >>> >> > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them >>> >> > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression. How >>> will >>> >> > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers >>> >> > > > (using Lewin's original >>> >> > > concept) determining what we listen to? >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > This of course is not just music. In the academy there has been >>> >> > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict >>> >> > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of >>> small >>> >> > > > conferences. Will the boundaries start to break down so we can >>> see >>> >> > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?" >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Michael >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> > From nancy.mack@wright.edu Mon Jun 29 05:37:58 2015 From: nancy.mack@wright.edu (Mack, Nancy J.) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:37:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com>, Message-ID: Sounds like she is more into social class Dr. Nancy Mack Professor of English ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces+nancy.mack=wright.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:41 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is ever present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: https://vimeo.com/13550409 Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like Children, Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her "exotropic theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, who was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some people were somehow less intelligent than others. Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". Some of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. David Kellogg On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the > term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to ?arbitrary? > when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is an > important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to be a > useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > Henry > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. > > Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > > Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that > had > > been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was > > eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I > > tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when > I > > was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > > contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of > > that universalist rationalist spirit: > > > > a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, > > spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > > b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, > > subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > > c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > principled > > distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages > > express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole > > wording. > > > > Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we > > use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical > > foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like > > Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words > are > > learned; grammar develops. > > > > Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > > essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them > > to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional > > relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than > universal > > "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > different > > in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" > always > > means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a > > "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > > closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional > > relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). > > > > Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general > > meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that > > vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar > > develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, > > precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you > > acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will > > transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have > already > > learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular > noun > > you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical > > metaphor, etc. > > > > I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it > means > > that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > > distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area > which > > Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of > > word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. > > > > Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally > > linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria > > organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > > references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > > lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that > the > > Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it > was > > a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > > linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > > > > But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a > > series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an > > ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In > > the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: > > Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > structural > > view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was > > carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable > > barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of > > "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find > between > > phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at > the > > time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than > the > > kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able > to > > describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. > > > > Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly > > endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and > > Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about > > morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some > > places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of > > Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the > > English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. > > when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > > > I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of > > language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative > > psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working > to > > put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time > much > > more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have > > approved. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > a) > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald > > wrote: > > > >> Fellow XMCA-ers > >> > >> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 > >> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in > fact > >> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for > >> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that > >> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to > >> use. > >> > >> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but > knowing > >> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to > it, > >> and it would have been good. > >> > >> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to > >> develop one. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are > right, > >>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s > >>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya > seems > >> to > >>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a > theory > >>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems > to > >>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just > >>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that > >>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very > gap > >> is > >>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera > >>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me > under > >>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive > >> grammar > >>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but > I > >>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said > >> about > >>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with > >>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the > >> lack > >>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. > >>> Rosch). > >>> > >>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that > >>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t > mean > >>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and > >>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > >>> > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It > brings > >>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, > >>> whoever contributes. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, > Henry. > >>> I'm > >>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose > main > >>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > >>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to > >> the > >>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff > >> of a > >>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > >>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be > >>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie > (e.g. > >>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > >>>> > >>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I > think > >>> the > >>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just > >>> start > >>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command > the > >>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You > >>> did > >>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the > >>> link > >>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for > >>> most > >>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > >>>> > >>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be > >>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than > >> you > >>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on > >>> fairy > >>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance > >>> of a > >>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was > >> working > >>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > >> (orientation, > >>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces > all > >>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. > Lukin's > >>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > >> Ruqaiyah. > >>>> > >>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very > charming > >>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you > were > >>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were > >>> going > >>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > >>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public > >>> speaker: > >>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was > >>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole > >>> was > >>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make > >>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > Ruqaiyah's > >>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the > end, > >>> and > >>>> then... > >>>> > >>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > >> stopped; > >>> I > >>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > >> practice. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> David, > >>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > >>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > >>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to > be > >>> an > >>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see > >> yet > >>> the > >>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can > >>> help > >>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my > >>> response > >>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? > >>>>> Henry > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > commemorative > >>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, > >> along > >>>>> the > >>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > >>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less > >>> the > >>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another > >>> thing > >>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by > far > >>> the > >>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a > >>> good > >>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > >>>>>> structure: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Henry > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > >>> production. > >>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not > >>> located > >>>>> in > >>>>>>> one particular part > >>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very > >>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as > >> a > >>>>>>> starting point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Time will tell. > >>>>>>> betcha > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little > I > >>>>> knew > >>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. > >> Not > >>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > >> Grammar! > >>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic > >>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > >> Vygotsky, > >>>>>>> THAT I > >>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike > >>>>>>> suggests, > >>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > >>>>>>> connection > >>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > >>>>> Ruqaiya). > >>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out > to > >>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to > focus > >>> too > >>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word > >>>>>>> meanings > >>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when > >>>>> their > >>>>>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > >> month--I'll > >>>>>>> miss > >>>>>>>>> her. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > >>> philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even > >>> have > >>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She > >>> was a > >>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein > >> and > >>>>>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > >>>>>>> suddenly > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by > >> the > >>>>>>>> stress > >>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. > >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some > >> time > >>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that > he > >>> is > >>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as > you > >>>>> know > >>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The > >>> time > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when > >> they > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to > >>>>>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in > >>> the > >>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > >>> extraordinary > >>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes > >>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > something > >>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >> Developmental psycholinguist > >> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >> > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 07:49:40 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:49:40 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C21A243-91B6-42E1-B2A5-BB3EC0B609E6@gmail.com> David, Would you care to expand (or should I say "elaborate") on your post which seemed rather "restricted" in scope? But seriously, could you say more about universal semantic categories and what those might be? And with regard to ruquia, could you elaborate on how she would respond to the classic critique of Bernstein that he seems to be saying that people of some classes just aren't as smart as people of other classes? Thinking like a child here, Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 29, 2015, at 2:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another > problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is ever > present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and > Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > > https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like Children, > Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what > Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in > particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her "exotropic > theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she > played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, who > was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was > simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were > more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped > by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some > people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are > universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be > dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be > true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and > libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce > class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their > functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". Some > of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > > David Kellogg > >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to ?arbitrary? >> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is an >> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to be a >> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. >>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >> had >>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I >>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when >> I >>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of >>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>> >>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, >>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >> principled >>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole >>> wording. >>> >>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we >>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical >>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >> are >>> learned; grammar develops. >>> >>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them >>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >> universal >>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >> different >>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >> always >>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional >>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>> >>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general >>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you >>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >> already >>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >> noun >>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>> metaphor, etc. >>> >>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >> means >>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >> which >>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of >>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>> >>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria >>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >> the >>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >> was >>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>> >>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In >>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >> structural >>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was >>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable >>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >> between >>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >> the >>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >> the >>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >> to >>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>> >>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about >>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some >>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of >>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the >>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. >>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>> >>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working >> to >>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >> much >>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have >>> approved. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> a) >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>> >>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 >>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >> fact >>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for >>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that >>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to >>>> use. >>>> >>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >> knowing >>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >> it, >>>> and it would have been good. >>>> >>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>> develop one. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >> right, >>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >> seems >>>> to >>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >> theory >>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >> to >>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that >>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >> gap >>>> is >>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >> under >>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>> grammar >>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but >> I >>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>> about >>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>> lack >>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. >>>>> Rosch). >>>>> >>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >> mean >>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and >>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>> >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >> brings >>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, >>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >> Henry. >>>>> I'm >>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >> main >>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>> the >>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>> of a >>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be >>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >> (e.g. >>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >> think >>>>> the >>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>> start >>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >> the >>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You >>>>> did >>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the >>>>> link >>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for >>>>> most >>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be >>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than >>>> you >>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on >>>>> fairy >>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance >>>>> of a >>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>> working >>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>> (orientation, >>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >> all >>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >> Lukin's >>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >> charming >>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >> were >>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were >>>>> going >>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>> speaker: >>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was >>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole >>>>> was >>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make >>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >> end, >>>>> and >>>>>> then... >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>> stopped; >>>>> I >>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>> practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> David, >>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >> be >>>>> an >>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>> yet >>>>> the >>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can >>>>> help >>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>> response >>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >> commemorative >>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>> along >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less >>>>> the >>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another >>>>> thing >>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >> far >>>>> the >>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a >>>>> good >>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>> production. >>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>> located >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very >>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as >>>> a >>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD >> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little >> I >>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. >>>> Not >>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic >>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike >>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >> to >>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >> focus >>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word >>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when >>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even >>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She >>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >> he >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >> you >>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The >>>>> time >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>> they >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to >>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >> something >>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >> >> >> From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 29 10:59:20 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:59:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> Message-ID: <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> Hi David, I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? Expecting to be corrected... :) Martin On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another > problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is ever > present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and > Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > > https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like Children, > Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what > Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in > particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her "exotropic > theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she > played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, who > was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was > simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were > more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped > by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some > people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are > universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be > dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be > true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and > libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce > class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their > functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". Some > of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > > David Kellogg > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> >> >> >> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to ?arbitrary? >> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is an >> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to be a >> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of ways. >>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >> had >>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes (I >>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago when >> I >>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension of >>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>> >>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. concepts, >>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >> principled >>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a whole >>> wording. >>> >>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model we >>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even logical >>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >> are >>> learned; grammar develops. >>> >>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them >>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >> universal >>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >> different >>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >> always >>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to proportional >>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>> >>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, local/general >>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when you >>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >> already >>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >> noun >>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>> metaphor, etc. >>> >>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >> means >>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >> which >>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development of >>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>> >>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and Luria >>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >> the >>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >> was >>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>> >>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. In >>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >> structural >>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure was >>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid impermeable >>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >> between >>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >> the >>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >> the >>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >> to >>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>> >>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking about >>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In some >>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One of >>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from the >>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one (e.g. >>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>> >>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was working >> to >>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >> much >>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would have >>> approved. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> a) >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>> >>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past 24 >>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >> fact >>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky for >>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, that >>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory to >>>> use. >>>> >>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >> knowing >>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >> it, >>>> and it would have been good. >>>> >>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>> develop one. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >> right, >>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >> seems >>>> to >>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >> theory >>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >> to >>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap that >>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >> gap >>>> is >>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >> under >>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>> grammar >>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, but >> I >>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>> about >>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>> lack >>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology (e.g. >>>>> Rosch). >>>>> >>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >> mean >>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar and >>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>> >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >> brings >>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the festschrift, >>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >> Henry. >>>>> I'm >>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >> main >>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>> the >>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>> of a >>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will be >>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >> (e.g. >>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >> think >>>>> the >>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>> start >>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >> the >>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. You >>>>> did >>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted the >>>>> link >>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point for >>>>> most >>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should be >>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting than >>>> you >>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work on >>>>> fairy >>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an instance >>>>> of a >>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>> working >>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>> (orientation, >>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >> all >>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >> Lukin's >>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >> charming >>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >> were >>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you were >>>>> going >>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>> speaker: >>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she was >>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the whole >>>>> was >>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would make >>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >> end, >>>>> and >>>>>> then... >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>> stopped; >>>>> I >>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>> practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> David, >>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >> be >>>>> an >>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>> yet >>>>> the >>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I can >>>>> help >>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>> response >>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative festschrift? >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >> commemorative >>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>> along >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or less >>>>> the >>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So another >>>>> thing >>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >> far >>>>> the >>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's a >>>>> good >>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>> production. >>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>> located >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. Very >>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will as >>>> a >>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD >> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how little >> I >>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading more. >>>> Not >>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to systemic >>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as Mike >>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >> to >>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >> focus >>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. As >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's word >>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell when >>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may even >>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. She >>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, Bernstein >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on by >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her body. >>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >> he >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >> you >>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. The >>>>> time >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>> they >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event to >>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later in >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which makes >>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >> something >>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>> >> >> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 14:51:00 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:51:00 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to see in America, where the difference between white English and black English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would call coding orientation. Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all linked to grammar). And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were better dressed. David Kellogg On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in > the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And > weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed > against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > > Expecting to be corrected... :) > > Martin > > On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another > > problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is > ever > > present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and > > Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > > > > https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > > > Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like > Children, > > Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what > > Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in > > particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her > "exotropic > > theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she > > played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, > who > > was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was > > simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were > > more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped > > by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some > > people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > > > Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are > > universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be > > dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be > > true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and > > libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce > > class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their > > functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". > Some > > of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the > >> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > ?arbitrary? > >> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is > an > >> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to > be a > >> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of > ways. > >>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > >>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that > >> had > >>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was > >>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes > (I > >>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago > when > >> I > >>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > >>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension > of > >>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > >>> > >>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > concepts, > >>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > >>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, > >>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > >>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > >> principled > >>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages > >>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a > whole > >>> wording. > >>> > >>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model > we > >>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even > logical > >>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like > >>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words > >> are > >>> learned; grammar develops. > >>> > >>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > >>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating > them > >>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional > >>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than > >> universal > >>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > >> different > >>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" > >> always > >>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a > >>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > >>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > proportional > >>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). > >>> > >>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > local/general > >>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that > >>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar > >>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, > >>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when > you > >>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will > >>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have > >> already > >>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular > >> noun > >>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical > >>> metaphor, etc. > >>> > >>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it > >> means > >>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > >>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area > >> which > >>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development > of > >>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. > >>> > >>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally > >>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and > Luria > >>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > >>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > >>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that > >> the > >>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it > >> was > >>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > >>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > >>> > >>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a > >>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an > >>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. > In > >>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: > >>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > >> structural > >>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure > was > >>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > impermeable > >>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of > >>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find > >> between > >>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at > >> the > >>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than > >> the > >>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able > >> to > >>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. > >>> > >>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly > >>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and > >>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking > about > >>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In > some > >>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One > of > >>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from > the > >>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one > (e.g. > >>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > >>> > >>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of > >>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative > >>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was > working > >> to > >>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time > >> much > >>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would > have > >>> approved. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> > >>> a) > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > carolmacdon@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > >>>> > >>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past > 24 > >>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in > >> fact > >>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky > for > >>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, > that > >>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory > to > >>>> use. > >>>> > >>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but > >> knowing > >>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to > >> it, > >>>> and it would have been good. > >>>> > >>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to > >>>> develop one. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> > >>>> Carol > >>>> > >>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are > >> right, > >>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s > >>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya > >> seems > >>>> to > >>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a > >> theory > >>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems > >> to > >>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just > >>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap > that > >>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very > >> gap > >>>> is > >>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera > >>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me > >> under > >>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive > >>>> grammar > >>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, > but > >> I > >>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said > >>>> about > >>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with > >>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the > >>>> lack > >>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology > (e.g. > >>>>> Rosch). > >>>>> > >>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that > >>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t > >> mean > >>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar > and > >>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > >>>>> > >>>>> Henry > >>>>> > >>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It > >> brings > >>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > festschrift, > >>>>> whoever contributes. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, > >> Henry. > >>>>> I'm > >>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose > >> main > >>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten > >>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to > >>>> the > >>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff > >>>> of a > >>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the > >>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will > be > >>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie > >> (e.g. > >>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I > >> think > >>>>> the > >>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just > >>>>> start > >>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command > >> the > >>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. > You > >>>>> did > >>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted > the > >>>>> link > >>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point > for > >>>>> most > >>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should > be > >>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting > than > >>>> you > >>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work > on > >>>>> fairy > >>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an > instance > >>>>> of a > >>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was > >>>> working > >>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > >>>> (orientation, > >>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces > >> all > >>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. > >> Lukin's > >>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > >>>> Ruqaiyah. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very > >> charming > >>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you > >> were > >>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you > were > >>>>> going > >>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your > >>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public > >>>>> speaker: > >>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she > was > >>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the > whole > >>>>> was > >>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would > make > >>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > >> Ruqaiyah's > >>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the > >> end, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> then... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > >>>> stopped; > >>>>> I > >>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > >>>> practice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> David, > >>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article > >>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to > >>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to > >> be > >>>>> an > >>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see > >>>> yet > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I > can > >>>>> help > >>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my > >>>>> response > >>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > festschrift? > >>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > >> commemorative > >>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, > >>>> along > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and > >>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or > less > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So > another > >>>>> thing > >>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by > >> far > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's > a > >>>>> good > >>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text > >>>>>>>> structure: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > >>>>> production. > >>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not > >>>>> located > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> one particular part > >>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. > Very > >>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will > as > >>>> a > >>>>>>>>> starting point. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > >>>>>>>>> betcha > >>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how > little > >> I > >>>>>>> knew > >>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading > more. > >>>> Not > >>>>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > >>>> Grammar! > >>>>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to > systemic > >>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > >>>> Vygotsky, > >>>>>>>>> THAT I > >>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as > Mike > >>>>>>>>> suggests, > >>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that > >>>>>>>>> connection > >>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on > >>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that > >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to > >> focus > >>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. > As > >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's > word > >>>>>>>>> meanings > >>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell > when > >>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > >>>> month--I'll > >>>>>>>>> miss > >>>>>>>>>>> her. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > >>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may > even > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. > She > >>>>> was a > >>>>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, > Bernstein > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away > >>>>>>>>> suddenly > >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on > by > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> stress > >>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her > body. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some > >>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that > >> he > >>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as > >> you > >>>>>>> know > >>>>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. > The > >>>>> time > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when > >>>> they > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event > to > >>>>>>>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later > in > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > >>>>> extraordinary > >>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which > makes > >>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > >> something > >>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 29 15:15:04 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:15:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > But > Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology > and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in > grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. > In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. David, where does this leave Labov's analysis of the negative in Black vernacular English, in which he seems to see "radically different kinds of grammatical operations"? And here's his rebuttal of the notion that African American kids are intellectually deficient; he writes that "All linguists agree that nonstandard dialects are highly structured systems"; evidently not just different in phonology and phonetics. Martin From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Mon Jun 29 15:33:44 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:33:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <5AD289B9-931A-47A5-AE48-FC63085CBC88@uniandes.edu.co> And this (from the link I provided) is so nice that I can't resist sending it along! Martin "Our work in the speech community makes it painfully obvious that in many ways working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class speakers, who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail. Many academic writers try to rid themselves of the part of middle-class style that is empty pretension, and keep the part necessary for precision. But the average middle-class speaker that we encounter makes no such effort; he is enmeshed in verbiage, the victim of sociolinguistic factors beyond his control." (Labov, 1972) From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 15:52:10 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:52:10 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin: A good example! Labov says: 'Some educational psychologists first draw from the writings of the British social psychologist Basil Bernstein the idea that "much of lower-class language consists of a kind of incidental 'emotional accompaniment' to action here and now." Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias against all forms of working-class behavior, so that he sees middle-class language as superior in every respect--as "more abstract, and necessarily somewhat more flexible, detailed and subtle."' Bernstein is making an empirical statement about a specific corpus of data--similar to the kinds of statements that Labov himself makes later in the article when he re-examines Bereiter's data. The same thing is true of Bernstein's comment on language which is "more abstract and necessarily somewhat more flexible, detailed, and subtle". These are all empirical facts, based on data. Ruqaiya's contribution (with Clare Cloran) was to provide a LOT more data--and also to provide grammatical categorires that made it clear exaclty what "flexible", "detailed" and "subtle" referred to. But to take these empirical statements about specific corpora--and then to say that "Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias against all forms of working class behavior" is about as fair as to take the statement that middle class language is "more abstract" and then to conclude that Bernstein "sees middle class language as superior in every respect". This proves one thing and one thing only: Labov is being ill-tempered and demagogic. Of course, any fair linguistic comparison will reveal that the rules of black English are more complex than the rules of white English, and they are just as binding. But that's trivial: there are African languages that have more than a hundred and seventy case endings. Even if this were not largely a matter of how you define case, it would prove nothing about how language is implicated in distributing information, much less in distrubting material goods and reproducing class differences. There's something much worse going on here, Martin. American culture has appropriated a lot from black English--and yes, a lot of it has necessarily been the appropriation of emotional responses to tragic and harrowing material processes. Somehow, when black people try to turn the tables and appropriate some of the really powerful abstract thinking that is, for historical reasons--because of slavery and murderous, genocidal repression, not to put to fine a point on it--concentrated in an academic discourse dominated by whites, we are told that this is not necessary or even desirable. Somehow, when black church leaders like Jesse Jackson say that blacks are now "African Americans" on a par with Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans, nobody even bothers to point out that a continent is not a country, and this kind of relabelling is a kind of rewriting history, just as the claim that the slavery was not the key issue in the Civil War is. And somehow, when Obama makes speeches to black people, he gets to say things like "we express God's grace", even though this implies that grace is something man gives rather than God, and nobody sees the contradiction. (I was too easy on Obama's speech: what he really said was not that grace was unasked for, but rather that it was undeserved, and unmerited. Yes--the kind of grace that God delivers through the barrel of a racist's gun is utterly undeserved and unmerited. But how can anyone say such stupid and heartless things, much less believe them? Only by assuming that what you say and even what you believe doesn't matter so long as you feel right.) David Kellogg On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > But > > Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > > empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > phonology > > and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference > in > > grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > dialects. > > In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. > > David, where does this leave Labov's analysis of the negative in Black > vernacular English, in which he seems to see "radically different kinds of > grammatical operations"? And here's his rebuttal of the notion that > African American kids are intellectually deficient; he writes that "All > linguists agree that nonstandard dialects are highly structured systems"; > evidently not just different in phonology and phonetics. > > > > Martin > From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 15:57:14 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:57:14 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <459FF12F-AFA2-462A-9B16-BFB760DFD1AB@gmail.com> One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! Henry P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was > 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, > registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you > compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, > the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar > questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary > with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear > when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to > Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But > Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology > and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in > grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. > In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, > when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can > use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer > the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to > see in America, where the difference between white English and black > English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > > If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that > the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, > in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't > just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also > uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one > point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God > gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that > Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down > because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to > convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but > given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the > irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony > anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some > in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that > the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack > of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has > nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would > call coding orientation. > > Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony > and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to > see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is > normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so > that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other > ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into > language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue > out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the > development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an > inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about > the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, > they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required > in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). > > So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument > between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even > demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to > "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original > post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would > have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to > know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect > on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of > reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was > pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that > language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was > teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all > linked to grammar). > > And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who > argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued > that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to > what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by > your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying > semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only > differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > > Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some > people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were > better dressed. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >> >> Expecting to be corrected... :) >> >> Martin >> >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >> ever >>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>> >>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >> Children, >>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >> "exotropic >>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >> who >>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>> >>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >> Some >>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >> ?arbitrary? >>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >> an >>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >> be a >>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >> ways. >>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>> had >>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >> (I >>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >> when >>>> I >>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >> of >>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>> >>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >> concepts, >>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>> principled >>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >> whole >>>>> wording. >>>>> >>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >> we >>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >> logical >>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>> are >>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>> >>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >> them >>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>> universal >>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>> different >>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>> always >>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >> proportional >>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>> >>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >> local/general >>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >> you >>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>> already >>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>> noun >>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>> means >>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>> which >>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >> of >>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >> Luria >>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>> the >>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>> was >>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>> >>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >> In >>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>> structural >>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >> was >>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >> impermeable >>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>> between >>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>> the >>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>> the >>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>> to >>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>> >>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >> about >>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >> some >>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >> of >>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >> the >>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >> (e.g. >>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>> >>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >> working >>>> to >>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>> much >>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >> have >>>>> approved. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> a) >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >> 24 >>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>> fact >>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >> for >>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >> that >>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >> to >>>>>> use. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>> knowing >>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>> it, >>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>> develop one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Carol >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>> right, >>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>> seems >>>>>> to >>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>> theory >>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>> to >>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >> that >>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>> gap >>>>>> is >>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>> under >>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>> grammar >>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >> but >>>> I >>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>> about >>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>> lack >>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >> (e.g. >>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>> mean >>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >> and >>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>> brings >>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >> festschrift, >>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>> Henry. >>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>> main >>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >> be >>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>> think >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>> start >>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>> the >>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >> You >>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >> the >>>>>>> link >>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >> for >>>>>>> most >>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >> be >>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >> than >>>>>> you >>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >> on >>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >> instance >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>> working >>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>> all >>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>> charming >>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>> were >>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >> were >>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >> was >>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >> whole >>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >> make >>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>> end, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>> be >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>> yet >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >> can >>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >> festschrift? >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>> along >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >> less >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >> another >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>> far >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >> a >>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >> Very >>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >> as >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >> little >>>> I >>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >> more. >>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >> Mike >>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>> focus >>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >> As >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >> word >>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >> when >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >> even >>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >> She >>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >> Bernstein >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >> by >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>> he >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>> you >>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >> The >>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >> to >>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >> makes >>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>> something >>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 17:07:43 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:07:43 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Gente, Perhaps Labov was being demagogic in his criticism of Bernstein. It?s also true that his contributions to the dialog on race in the U.S. have been fundamental, so that one of the reasons we can talk now about Black English as rich and rule-governed, rather than an impoverished and degenerate form of Standard English, is thanks to him. (Sapir, served much the same role in describing indigenous languages of the U.S. Take Navajo ) So, how is it that Labov can be fighting racism while being ethnocentric? Posturing for a good cause? And where do we draw the line between friends and enemies? Compared to Vygotsky we academics live in very safe times. When he was alive, it was mortally unsafe to say some things. And who knew then how fast the weather was changing, and in which direction? Who believes that Vygotsky would have lived, if T.B. hadn?t killed him? I say it?s safe now, but I understand that Black people don?t see it the same way. In fact, being an academic isn?t always safe, is it? Depends on what you mean by ?safe?, I guess. Henry P.S. David, you said you were ?too easy on Obama?s speech and that ?grace? is not earned. So Obama was being imprecise about the meaning of ?grace", but it wasn't Obama who was being ?stupid? and ?heartless?, right? Sorry if I don?t get what you mean, except that it seems to be an important issue and relevant to the things said by Labov about Bernstein. And it is about the larger issue of this thread: Grammar. I guess I am saying that while linguists can do their best to describe language structure, but it always falls short of the richness of the object. Meaning is always lost. In that sense, scientific concepts (for example, those of linguistics) are really an impoverished and degenerate version of true concepts. I exagerrate here, but I think I am echoing some of the problems of interpreting Vygotsky on concepts (true concepts and scientific concepts, especially) expressed by you, Paula Towsey and Mike Cole on the Vimeo link you provided a few posts back. And here?s the broken record: Raquaiya is right: We need and theory of grammar for CHAT, to do justice to language in a Vygotskian framework. Don?t get me started. > On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:52 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin: > > A good example! Labov says: > > 'Some educational psychologists first draw from the writings of the British > social psychologist Basil Bernstein the idea that "much of lower-class > language consists of a kind of incidental 'emotional accompaniment' to > action here and now." Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias > against all forms of working-class behavior, so that he sees middle-class > language as superior in every respect--as "more abstract, and necessarily > somewhat more flexible, detailed and subtle."' > > Bernstein is making an empirical statement about a specific corpus of > data--similar to the kinds of statements that Labov himself makes later in > the article when he re-examines Bereiter's data. The same thing is true of > Bernstein's comment on language which is "more abstract and necessarily > somewhat more flexible, detailed, and subtle". These are all empirical > facts, based on data. Ruqaiya's contribution (with Clare Cloran) was to > provide a LOT more data--and also to provide grammatical categorires that > made it clear exaclty what "flexible", "detailed" and "subtle" referred to. > > But to take these empirical statements about specific corpora--and then to > say that "Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias against all > forms of working class behavior" is about as fair as to take the statement > that middle class language is "more abstract" and then to conclude that > Bernstein "sees middle class language as superior in every respect". This > proves one thing and one thing only: Labov is being ill-tempered and > demagogic. > > Of course, any fair linguistic comparison will reveal that the rules of > black English are more complex than the rules of white English, and they > are just as binding. But that's trivial: there are African languages that > have more than a hundred and seventy case endings. Even if this were not > largely a matter of how you define case, it would prove nothing about how > language is implicated in distributing information, much less in > distrubting material goods and reproducing class differences. > > There's something much worse going on here, Martin. American culture has > appropriated a lot from black English--and yes, a lot of it has necessarily > been the appropriation of emotional responses to tragic and harrowing > material processes. Somehow, when black people try to turn the tables and > appropriate some of the really powerful abstract thinking that is, for > historical reasons--because of slavery and murderous, genocidal repression, > not to put to fine a point on it--concentrated in an academic discourse > dominated by whites, we are told that this is not necessary or even > desirable. Somehow, when black church leaders like Jesse Jackson say that > blacks are now "African Americans" on a par with Irish-Americans or > Italian-Americans, nobody even bothers to point out that a continent is not > a country, and this kind of relabelling is a kind of rewriting history, > just as the claim that the slavery was not the key issue in the Civil War > is. And somehow, when Obama makes speeches to black people, he gets to say > things like "we express God's grace", even though this implies that grace > is something man gives rather than God, and nobody sees the contradiction. > > (I was too easy on Obama's speech: what he really said was not that grace > was unasked for, but rather that it was undeserved, and unmerited. Yes--the > kind of grace that God delivers through the barrel of a racist's gun is > utterly undeserved and unmerited. But how can anyone say such stupid and > heartless things, much less believe them? Only by assuming that what you > say and even what you believe doesn't matter so long as you feel right.) > > David Kellogg > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> But >>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of >> phonology >>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference >> in >>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply >> dialects. >>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. >> >> David, where does this leave Labov's analysis of the negative in Black >> vernacular English, in which he seems to see "radically different kinds of >> grammatical operations"? And here's his rebuttal of the notion that >> African American kids are intellectually deficient; he writes that "All >> linguists agree that nonstandard dialects are highly structured systems"; >> evidently not just different in phonology and phonetics. >> >> >> >> Martin >> From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Jun 29 17:31:55 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:31:55 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. ?This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. ?His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! Henry P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was > 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, > registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you > compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, > the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar > questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary > with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear > when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to > Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But > Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology > and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in > grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. > In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, > when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can > use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer > the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to > see in America, where the difference between white English and black > English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > > If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that > the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, > in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't > just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also > uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one > point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God > gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that > Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down > because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to > convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but > given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the > irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony > anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some > in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that > the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack > of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has > nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would > call coding orientation. > > Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony > and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to > see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is > normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so > that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other > ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into > language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue > out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the > development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an > inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about > the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, > they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required > in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). > > So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument > between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even > demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to > "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original > post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would > have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to > know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect > on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of > reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was > pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that > language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was > teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all > linked to grammar). > > And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who > argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued > that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to > what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by > your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying > semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only > differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > > Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some > people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were > better dressed. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >> >> Expecting to be corrected... :) >> >> Martin >> >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >> ever >>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>> >>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >> Children, >>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >> "exotropic >>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >> who >>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>> >>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >> Some >>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >> ?arbitrary? >>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >> an >>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >> be a >>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >> ways. >>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>> had >>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >> (I >>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >> when >>>> I >>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >> of >>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>> >>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >> concepts, >>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>> principled >>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >> whole >>>>> wording. >>>>> >>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >> we >>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >> logical >>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>> are >>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>> >>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >> them >>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>> universal >>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>> different >>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>> always >>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >> proportional >>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>> >>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >> local/general >>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >> you >>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>> already >>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>> noun >>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>> means >>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>> which >>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >> of >>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >> Luria >>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>> the >>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>> was >>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>> >>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >> In >>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>> structural >>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >> was >>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >> impermeable >>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>> between >>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>> the >>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>> the >>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>> to >>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>> >>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >> about >>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >> some >>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >> of >>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >> the >>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >> (e.g. >>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>> >>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >> working >>>> to >>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>> much >>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >> have >>>>> approved. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> a) >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >> 24 >>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>> fact >>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >> for >>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >> that >>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >> to >>>>>> use. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>> knowing >>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>> it, >>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>> develop one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Carol >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>> right, >>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>> seems >>>>>> to >>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>> theory >>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>> to >>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >> that >>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>> gap >>>>>> is >>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>> under >>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>> grammar >>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >> but >>>> I >>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>> about >>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>> lack >>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >> (e.g. >>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>> mean >>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >> and >>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>> brings >>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >> festschrift, >>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>> Henry. >>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>> main >>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >> be >>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>> think >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>> start >>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>> the >>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >> You >>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >> the >>>>>>> link >>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >> for >>>>>>> most >>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >> be >>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >> than >>>>>> you >>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >> on >>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >> instance >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>> working >>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>> all >>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>> charming >>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>> were >>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >> were >>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >> was >>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >> whole >>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >> make >>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>> end, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>> be >>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>> yet >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >> can >>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >> festschrift? >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>> along >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >> less >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >> another >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>> far >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >> a >>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >> Very >>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >> as >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >> little >>>> I >>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >> more. >>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >> Mike >>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>> focus >>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >> As >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >> word >>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >> when >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >> even >>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >> She >>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >> Bernstein >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >> by >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>> he >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>> you >>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >> The >>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >> to >>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >> makes >>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>> something >>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Jun 29 22:05:58 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:05:58 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Sheila Jasanoff on Civic Epistemology Message-ID: <559223B6.6000300@mira.net> In the course of reviewing the literature on climate change scepticism, I came across this wonderful writer, Sheila Jasanoff, who, as part of her argument against the idea that scientists' have about "public understanding of science" and if only the people had a better understanding of science, then things would be much better, introduced this idea of "civic epistemologies" which are different from country to country. From Marxist literature I was already aware of some of this, but she makes a detailed study of the differences between Britain, the US and Germany, which are immediately revealing. This caused me to reflect on Australian civic epistemology, and I almost laughed when I then recalled the debate on climate change we have had in Oz, and how it typifies our own civic epistemology. Jasanoff has nothing to do with Vygotsky, but the CHAT critique of cross-cultural psychology, culture-free conceptions of knowledge and the historical formation of knowledge find plenty of resonances within Jasanoff's ideas. I have attached a chapter from one of her more well-known books for the interest of xmca-ers. Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Jasanoff_Civic_Epistemology.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 105717 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/77c67603/attachment.pdf From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 22:14:43 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:14:43 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <8FFF98B5-21B0-4116-8F7E-C0D25500B164@gmail.com> <0B4062E3-5A8B-4C8A-ADC6-82251ADA0B14@gmail.com> <278D4760-D959-4735-8914-868DC2EA3A9C@uniandes.edu.co> <0753A92C-BC36-493C-967D-A2D05B39EA67@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: So my apologies for not sticking with Hasan. I confess to lacking adequate familiarity with her work to be able to address it adequately (David, please feel free to fill in more gaps for us), but it seems that we have gotten onto a discussion of her mentor Bernstein and I thought I'd run with that. (this also happens to be particularly relevant for me since I've just collected data for a project in which me and a colleague will be investigating "academic talk" among 2nd grade Latino immigrants here in Provo, and it turns out that the notion of "academic talk" that is being put forward (Van Kleeck 2014) is very similar to Bernstein's "elaborated" code). So I'll limit myself to Bernstein with implications for Van Kleeck and others who are proposing "academic talk" as a register. [Hymes' appraisal can be found on pp. 46-51 of Ethnography, Linguistics, and Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice]. Here is my somewhat lengthy and quotation-rich summary of Hymes' appraisal of Bernstein's project: Here is Hyme's sense of what is important about Bernstein's project: "We must be thankful to Bernstein for the courage to insist on an essential truth -- with one and the same language there are socially shaped contrasts in way of speaking and verbal resource -- but we must go beyond his analytic scheme." (p. 47). Here Hymes is pointing to the fact that Bernstein brought to light the fact that, just because people speak the same language, does not mean that they have equal access to the goods obtained by that language. In this sense, Bernstein is an important corrective. Further, Hymes notes, "More than anyone else in sociolinguistics, he [Bernstein] has called attention forcefully to essential dimensions of the organization of ways of speaking and styles of speech. Hymes then raises a number of substantial concerns with Bernstein's project: "The implication of Bernstein's argument is that command of the more explicit style ('elaborated code') should be common to all", but then "To apply such a remedy, one would have to enable others to identify reliably the more explicit style, on the one hand, and the desired kind of cognitive power, on the other, and assume a necessary link between them." Here, Hymes is pointing to the need to be able to draw some kind of link between the explicit style ('elaborated code') and cognitive power of some kind or other (I would prefer to call this competence in a domain or something like that, but I take his meaning here). Hymes makes it clear that he is willing to entertain the idea that not all verbal repertoires are created equal: "Certain kinds of analysis of social life no doubt require certain kinds of verbal resource, but we are far from knowing how much of the verbal style in which we now couch such analysis is necessary, how much merely customary. There are verbal repertoires without something of what is necessary -- in this I agree with Bernstein." (p. 47). But Hymes notes a further problem "no use of language is ever wholly context-free." This means that Bernstein's elaborated codes may not always be associated with analytic prowess (or cognitive power or whatever) that it is assumed to be associated with and vice-versa: "Certainly there are differences in degree of dependence and independence, but their relationship to forms of social life and cognitive power is not self-evident. We may think of science and scholarship as dealing in universalistic, context-free meanings, but such work can be highly particularistic and context-dependent, if one thinks in terms of ability and opportunity to share in it. There are large elements of faith and authority, both for those outside these fields and for those within them?" Furthermore, "If public communicability of analytic knowledge is considered, then adaptation to particular contexts of understanding may have an essential role. Some forms of knowledge, indeed, may require literary rather than scientific methods for their effective transmission, and it is not clear where such verbal methods fit within the contrast in question [restricted vs. elaborated]." And "we tend to think of explicitness as frankness, as egalitarian and democratic (at least in public communication), yet in some societies (cf. Rosaldo, 1973) explicitness is experienced authoritarian, whereas implicitness, allusion, and indirectness is essential to traditional, reciprocal, consensual modes of resolving issues" (p. 48). Further concerns raised by Hymes: -Hymes proposes that we should speak of "styles" rather than "codes" b.c. while the latter presupposes the meaning of the code, "style" leaves open the meaning of style to those who use it. -Bernstein's work suggests that people either speak one or the other code and, with a few rare exceptions, Bernstein does not consider how these codes might be differently used by the same person in different contexts. As Hymes puts it, "the thrust of his analysis continues to be that the distribution of code orientations in the society is tantamount to a distribution of people. (Else why distinguish distinct codes as underlying parallel variants?)" (p. 51). -Hymes proposes instead that people can in fact have alternative code-orientations and that "The central problem is the management of the relation between the two" (p. 51). -Here Hymes suggests that people have "repertoires" of code-orientation and that they "[have] to adapt to a communicative ecology that favors now one, now another, element of the repertoire, there being often enough serious tension between person and niche." This seems to me to be a very CHAT point to begin to ask about the communicative ecology that favors one or another element of the repertoire of the speaker And I thought this was a nice way to put it all together: "The problem, then, is not absence of the orientation in the person, nor absolute absence of contexts for an orientation, but a specific network of relations between orientations, contents and contexts" (p. 51). Anyway, that was a lot for a single post so I'll leave it at that. If anyone has any interest or familiarity with the Van Kleeck notion of an "academic talk" register, I'd love to chat but maybe we should start a new thread? Cheers to all, -greg On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Martin: > > A good example! Labov says: > > 'Some educational psychologists first draw from the writings of the British > social psychologist Basil Bernstein the idea that "much of lower-class > language consists of a kind of incidental 'emotional accompaniment' to > action here and now." Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias > against all forms of working-class behavior, so that he sees middle-class > language as superior in every respect--as "more abstract, and necessarily > somewhat more flexible, detailed and subtle."' > > Bernstein is making an empirical statement about a specific corpus of > data--similar to the kinds of statements that Labov himself makes later in > the article when he re-examines Bereiter's data. The same thing is true of > Bernstein's comment on language which is "more abstract and necessarily > somewhat more flexible, detailed, and subtle". These are all empirical > facts, based on data. Ruqaiya's contribution (with Clare Cloran) was to > provide a LOT more data--and also to provide grammatical categorires that > made it clear exaclty what "flexible", "detailed" and "subtle" referred to. > > But to take these empirical statements about specific corpora--and then to > say that "Bernstein's views are filtered through a strong bias against all > forms of working class behavior" is about as fair as to take the statement > that middle class language is "more abstract" and then to conclude that > Bernstein "sees middle class language as superior in every respect". This > proves one thing and one thing only: Labov is being ill-tempered and > demagogic. > > Of course, any fair linguistic comparison will reveal that the rules of > black English are more complex than the rules of white English, and they > are just as binding. But that's trivial: there are African languages that > have more than a hundred and seventy case endings. Even if this were not > largely a matter of how you define case, it would prove nothing about how > language is implicated in distributing information, much less in > distrubting material goods and reproducing class differences. > > There's something much worse going on here, Martin. American culture has > appropriated a lot from black English--and yes, a lot of it has necessarily > been the appropriation of emotional responses to tragic and harrowing > material processes. Somehow, when black people try to turn the tables and > appropriate some of the really powerful abstract thinking that is, for > historical reasons--because of slavery and murderous, genocidal repression, > not to put to fine a point on it--concentrated in an academic discourse > dominated by whites, we are told that this is not necessary or even > desirable. Somehow, when black church leaders like Jesse Jackson say that > blacks are now "African Americans" on a par with Irish-Americans or > Italian-Americans, nobody even bothers to point out that a continent is not > a country, and this kind of relabelling is a kind of rewriting history, > just as the claim that the slavery was not the key issue in the Civil War > is. And somehow, when Obama makes speeches to black people, he gets to say > things like "we express God's grace", even though this implies that grace > is something man gives rather than God, and nobody sees the contradiction. > > (I was too easy on Obama's speech: what he really said was not that grace > was unasked for, but rather that it was undeserved, and unmerited. Yes--the > kind of grace that God delivers through the barrel of a racist's gun is > utterly undeserved and unmerited. But how can anyone say such stupid and > heartless things, much less believe them? Only by assuming that what you > say and even what you believe doesn't matter so long as you feel right.) > > David Kellogg > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > But > > > Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > > > empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > > phonology > > > and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference > > in > > > grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > > dialects. > > > In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. > > > > David, where does this leave Labov's analysis of the negative in Black > > vernacular English, in which he seems to see "radically different kinds > of > > grammatical operations"? And here's his rebuttal of the notion that > > African American kids are intellectually deficient; he writes that "All > > linguists agree that nonstandard dialects are highly structured systems"; > > evidently not just different in phonology and phonetics. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 23:25:22 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:25:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. With respect, Henry > On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > > Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... > > > Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > >
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > > I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. > > I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! > > Henry > > P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was >> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, >> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you >> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, >> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar >> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary >> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear >> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to >> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But >> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology >> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in >> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. >> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, >> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can >> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer >> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to >> see in America, where the difference between white English and black >> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. >> >> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that >> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, >> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't >> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also >> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely >> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one >> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God >> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that >> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down >> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to >> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but >> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the >> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony >> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some >> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that >> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack >> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has >> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would >> call coding orientation. >> >> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony >> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to >> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is >> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so >> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other >> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into >> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue >> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the >> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an >> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about >> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, >> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required >> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). >> >> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument >> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even >> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to >> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original >> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would >> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to >> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect >> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of >> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was >> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that >> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was >> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all >> linked to grammar). >> >> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who >> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued >> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to >> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which >> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by >> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying >> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only >> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. >> >> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some >> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were >> better dressed. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer >> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >>> >>> Expecting to be corrected... :) >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >>> ever >>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>>> >>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >>> Children, >>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >>> "exotropic >>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >>> who >>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>>> >>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >>> Some >>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >>> ?arbitrary? >>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >>> an >>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >>> be a >>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >>> ways. >>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>>> had >>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >>> (I >>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >>> when >>>>> I >>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >>> of >>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >>> concepts, >>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>>> principled >>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >>> whole >>>>>> wording. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >>> we >>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >>> logical >>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>>> are >>>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>>> >>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >>> them >>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>>> universal >>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>>> different >>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>>> always >>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >>> proportional >>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >>> local/general >>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >>> you >>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>>> already >>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>>> noun >>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>>> means >>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>>> which >>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >>> of >>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >>> Luria >>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>>> the >>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>>> was >>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>>> >>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >>> In >>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>>> structural >>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >>> was >>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >>> impermeable >>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>>> between >>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>>> the >>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>>> the >>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>>> to >>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >>> about >>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >>> some >>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >>> of >>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >>> the >>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >>> (e.g. >>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >>> working >>>>> to >>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>>> much >>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >>> have >>>>>> approved. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> a) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >>> 24 >>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>>> fact >>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >>> for >>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >>> that >>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >>> to >>>>>>> use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>>> knowing >>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>>> it, >>>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>>> develop one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>>> right, >>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>>> seems >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>>> theory >>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>>> to >>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >>> that >>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>>> gap >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>>> under >>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >>> but >>>>> I >>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>>> mean >>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >>> and >>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>>> brings >>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >>> festschrift, >>>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>>> Henry. >>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>>> main >>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >>> be >>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>>> think >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >>> You >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >>> the >>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >>> for >>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >>> be >>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >>> than >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >>> on >>>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >>> instance >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>>> all >>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>>> charming >>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>>> were >>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >>> were >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >>> was >>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >>> whole >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >>> make >>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>>> end, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>>> be >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >>> can >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >>> festschrift? >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >>> less >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >>> another >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>>> far >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >>> a >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >>> Very >>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >>> as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >>> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >>> little >>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >>> more. >>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >>> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>>> focus >>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >>> word >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >>> when >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >>> even >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >>> She >>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >>> Bernstein >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >>> by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >>> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>>> he >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >>> The >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jun 30 04:37:03 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:37:03 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: <09k3bt6f6ql2ugikk6thgxu5.1435664223724@email.android.com> "The Obama problem," is emblematic of the strife between cornel west and Michael Eric dyson. ?You have black folks who love him simply because ?he is so-called black, which makes him beyond reproach, and the one brother (west) who treats him no differently from any other puppet of the American oligarchy.? Because I am haitian, I do not see Obama as a black man. ?For me he is white (in haiti the one drop rule is reversed), which is why I can not for anything understand the postmodern/post structural emphasis on the politic of the body found among critical race theorists. ?Blacks in america are a by-product of racial - class structural differentiation, and this maudlin reinterpretation ?of the black church by West, dyson, and the media as the source for black liberation and struggle is laughable and historically inaccurate. The church in slavery, as now, was an ideological apparatus used to oppress blacks, justify slavery, and mentally enslave the african. ?Go into any small black church in america, they know more about white jesus than they do about homer plessy, nat turner, dessalines, boukman dutty, etc. (By the way, my father-in-law is the deacon of his so-called black church, when I met my wife, he invited me to church. ?I said no...the church is a form of white supremacy---I do not care how cone wants to rationalize it--- he told me that jesus saved him from being an african, and he loves the lord for that). ?I find it absurd when so-called black public intellectuals?overlook historical facts for rhetoric while staring at blonde-haired and blue-eyed jesus from the pulpit.... REALLY? The absurdity impacts every aspect of so-called black life... dividing black folks into good blacks who are educated, speak standard english, eat soul food (but do not want whites to know that they eat soul food or associate it with their so-called black culture) and attend the black church v. Those who are uneducated, speak AAEV, eat soul food, and do not attend the black church as often as the former. ?The latter somehow represents authentic blackness and the former "black Anglo-Saxons" (Nathan Hare's term). ?Both are black anglo-saxons differentiated, interpellated, and embourgeoised by different ideological apparatuses of the American social structure...? let me not get started on the absurdity of afrocentrism! Obama ' s eulogy just went over my head. ?I do not understand this talk of grace, turn the other check, love your enemies, etc. ?The blood of dessalines flows through my body and the divinity that assisted my ancestors in overthrowing slavery deems it inhumane to turn the other cheek in the midst of oppression, exploitation, and cruelty! ?In america the black man has been castrated and the black woman has become the freedom fighters, unlike my father-in-law, my mother-in-law will drop the jesus rhetoric in a heartbeat when she deems that it is not working! Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/30/2015 2:25 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. With respect, Henry > On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > > Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... > > > Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > >
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > > I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. > > I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! > > Henry > > P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was >> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, >> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you >> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, >> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar >> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary >> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear >> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to >> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But >> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology >> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in >> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. >> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, >> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can >> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer >> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to >> see in America, where the difference between white English and black >> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. >> >> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that >> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, >> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't >> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also >> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely >> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one >> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God >> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that >> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down >> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to >> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but >> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the >> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony >> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some >> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that >> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack >> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has >> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would >> call coding orientation. >> >> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony >> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to >> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is >> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so >> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other >> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into >> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue >> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the >> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an >> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about >> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, >> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required >> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). >> >> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument >> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even >> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to >> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original >> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would >> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to >> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect >> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of >> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was >> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that >> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was >> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all >> linked to grammar). >> >> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who >> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued >> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to >> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which >> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by >> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying >> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only >> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. >> >> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some >> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were >> better dressed. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer >> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >>> >>> Expecting to be corrected... :) >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >>> ever >>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>>> >>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>>> >>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >>> Children, >>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >>> "exotropic >>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >>> who >>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>>> >>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >>> Some >>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >>> ?arbitrary? >>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >>> an >>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >>> be a >>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >>> ways. >>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>>> had >>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >>> (I >>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >>> when >>>>> I >>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >>> of >>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >>> concepts, >>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>>> principled >>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >>> whole >>>>>> wording. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >>> we >>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >>> logical >>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>>> are >>>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>>> >>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >>> them >>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>>> universal >>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>>> different >>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>>> always >>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >>> proportional >>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >>> local/general >>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >>> you >>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>>> already >>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>>> noun >>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>>> means >>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>>> which >>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >>> of >>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >>> Luria >>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>>> the >>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>>> was >>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>>> >>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >>> In >>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>>> structural >>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >>> was >>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >>> impermeable >>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>>> between >>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>>> the >>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>>> the >>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>>> to >>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >>> about >>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >>> some >>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >>> of >>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >>> the >>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >>> (e.g. >>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >>> working >>>>> to >>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>>> much >>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >>> have >>>>>> approved. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> a) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >>> 24 >>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>>> fact >>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >>> for >>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >>> that >>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >>> to >>>>>>> use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>>> knowing >>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>>> it, >>>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>>> develop one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>>> right, >>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>>> seems >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>>> theory >>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>>> to >>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >>> that >>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>>> gap >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>>> under >>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >>> but >>>>> I >>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>>> mean >>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >>> and >>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>>> brings >>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >>> festschrift, >>>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>>> Henry. >>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>>> main >>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >>> be >>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>>> think >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >>> You >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >>> the >>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >>> for >>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >>> be >>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >>> than >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >>> on >>>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >>> instance >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>>> all >>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>>> charming >>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>>> were >>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >>> were >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >>> was >>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >>> whole >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >>> make >>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>>> end, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>>> be >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >>> can >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >>> festschrift? >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >>> less >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >>> another >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>>> far >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >>> a >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >>> Very >>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >>> as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >>> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >>> little >>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >>> more. >>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >>> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>>> focus >>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >>> word >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >>> when >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >>> even >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >>> She >>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >>> Bernstein >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >>> by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >>> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>>> he >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >>> The >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 08:54:28 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:54:28 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use of a given code/style? Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that has properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the contrary? But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? David? (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > > I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. > > With respect, > Henry > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >> >> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... >> >> >> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II >> >>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. >> >> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. >> >> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! >> >> Henry >> >> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was >>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, >>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you >>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, >>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar >>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary >>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear >>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to >>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But >>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology >>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in >>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. >>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, >>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can >>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer >>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to >>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black >>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. >>> >>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that >>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, >>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't >>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also >>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely >>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one >>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God >>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that >>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down >>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to >>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but >>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the >>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony >>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some >>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that >>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack >>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has >>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would >>> call coding orientation. >>> >>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony >>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to >>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is >>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so >>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other >>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into >>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue >>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the >>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an >>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about >>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, >>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required >>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). >>> >>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument >>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even >>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to >>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original >>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would >>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to >>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect >>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of >>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was >>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that >>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was >>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all >>> linked to grammar). >>> >>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who >>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued >>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to >>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which >>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by >>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying >>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only >>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. >>> >>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some >>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were >>> better dressed. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >>>> >>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >>>> ever >>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>>>> >>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>>>> >>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >>>> Children, >>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >>>> "exotropic >>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >>>> who >>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>>>> >>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >>>> Some >>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >>>> ?arbitrary? >>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >>>> an >>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >>>> be a >>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >>>> ways. >>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>>>> had >>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >>>> (I >>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >>>> when >>>>>> I >>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >>>> of >>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >>>> concepts, >>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>>>> principled >>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >>>> whole >>>>>>> wording. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >>>> we >>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >>>> logical >>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>>>> are >>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >>>> them >>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>>>> universal >>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>>>> different >>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>>>> always >>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >>>> proportional >>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >>>> local/general >>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >>>> you >>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>>>> already >>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>>>> noun >>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>>>> means >>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>>>> which >>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >>>> of >>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >>>> Luria >>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>>>> the >>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>>>> was >>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >>>> In >>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>>>> structural >>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >>>> was >>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >>>> impermeable >>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>>>> between >>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>>>> the >>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>>>> the >>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>>>> to >>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >>>> about >>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >>>> some >>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >>>> of >>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >>>> the >>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >>>> working >>>>>> to >>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>>>> much >>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >>>> have >>>>>>> approved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >>>> 24 >>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>>>> fact >>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >>>> for >>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >>>> that >>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >>>> to >>>>>>>> use. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>>>> knowing >>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>>>> it, >>>>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>>>> develop one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>>>> right, >>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>>>> theory >>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >>>> that >>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>>>> gap >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>>>> under >>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >>>> but >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >>>> and >>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>>>> brings >>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >>>> festschrift, >>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>>>> Henry. >>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >>>> be >>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >>>> You >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >>>> the >>>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >>>> for >>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >>>> be >>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >>>> than >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >>>> on >>>>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >>>> instance >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>>>> charming >>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >>>> were >>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >>>> was >>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >>>> whole >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >>>> make >>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >>>> can >>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >>>> festschrift? >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >>>> less >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >>>> another >>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>>>> far >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >>>> a >>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >>>> Very >>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >>>> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >>>> little >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >>>> more. >>>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >>>> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>>>> focus >>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >>>> when >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >>>> even >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >>>> She >>>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >>>> Bernstein >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >>>> by >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >>>> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>>>> he >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >>>> The >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >>>> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >>>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jun 30 09:46:50 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:46:50 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: <7573gkiwc8v4fx09d3k55t8a.1435682810473@email.android.com> To get a better understanding of my reply to Henry this morning, Watch "Cornel West on Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, Trans Rights, and B.B. King | #GRITtv" on YouTube https://youtu.be/nHsHhj329T4? Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
Date:06/30/2015 11:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use of a given code/style? Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that has properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the contrary? But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? David? (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > > I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. > > With respect, > Henry > >> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >> >> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... >> >> >> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II >> >>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. >> >> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. >> >> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! >> >> Henry >> >> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was >>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, >>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you >>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, >>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar >>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary >>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear >>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to >>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But >>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology >>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in >>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. >>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, >>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can >>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer >>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to >>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black >>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. >>> >>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that >>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, >>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't >>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also >>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely >>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one >>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God >>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that >>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down >>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to >>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but >>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the >>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony >>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some >>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that >>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack >>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has >>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would >>> call coding orientation. >>> >>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony >>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to >>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is >>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so >>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other >>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into >>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue >>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the >>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an >>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about >>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, >>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required >>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). >>> >>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument >>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even >>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to >>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original >>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would >>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to >>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect >>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of >>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was >>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that >>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was >>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all >>> linked to grammar). >>> >>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who >>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued >>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to >>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which >>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by >>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying >>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only >>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. >>> >>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some >>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were >>> better dressed. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >>>> >>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >>>> ever >>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>>>> >>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>>>> >>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >>>> Children, >>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >>>> "exotropic >>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >>>> who >>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>>>> >>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >>>> Some >>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >>>> ?arbitrary? >>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >>>> an >>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >>>> be a >>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >>>> ways. >>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>>>> had >>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >>>> (I >>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >>>> when >>>>>> I >>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >>>> of >>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >>>> concepts, >>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>>>> principled >>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >>>> whole >>>>>>> wording. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >>>> we >>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >>>> logical >>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>>>> are >>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >>>> them >>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>>>> universal >>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>>>> different >>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>>>> always >>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >>>> proportional >>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >>>> local/general >>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >>>> you >>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>>>> already >>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>>>> noun >>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>>>> means >>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>>>> which >>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >>>> of >>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >>>> Luria >>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>>>> the >>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>>>> was >>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >>>> In >>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>>>> structural >>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >>>> was >>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >>>> impermeable >>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>>>> between >>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>>>> the >>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>>>> the >>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>>>> to >>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >>>> about >>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >>>> some >>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >>>> of >>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >>>> the >>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >>>> working >>>>>> to >>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>>>> much >>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >>>> have >>>>>>> approved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >>>> 24 >>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>>>> fact >>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >>>> for >>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >>>> that >>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >>>> to >>>>>>>> use. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>>>> knowing >>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>>>> it, >>>>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>>>> develop one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>>>> right, >>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>>>> theory >>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >>>> that >>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>>>> gap >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>>>> under >>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >>>> but >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >>>> and >>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>>>> brings >>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >>>> festschrift, >>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>>>> Henry. >>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >>>> be >>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >>>> You >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >>>> the >>>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >>>> for >>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >>>> be >>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >>>> than >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >>>> on >>>>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >>>> instance >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>>>> charming >>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >>>> were >>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >>>> was >>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >>>> whole >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >>>> make >>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >>>> can >>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >>>> festschrift? >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >>>> less >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >>>> another >>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>>>> far >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >>>> a >>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >>>> Very >>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >>>> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >>>> little >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >>>> more. >>>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >>>> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>>>> focus >>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >>>> when >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >>>> even >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >>>> She >>>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >>>> Bernstein >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >>>> by >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >>>> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>>>> he >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >>>> The >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >>>> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >>>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jun 30 10:03:31 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:03:31 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: From Ferguson to south Carolina ?we have young sisters on the front line... Watch ""This Flag Comes Down Today": Bree Newsome Scales SC Capitol Flagpole to Remove a Symbol of Hate" on YouTube https://youtu.be/kZivlUHtcBQ Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
Date:06/30/2015 12:46 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
To get a better understanding of my reply to Henry this morning, Watch "Cornel West on Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, Trans Rights, and B.B. King | #GRITtv" on YouTube https://youtu.be/nHsHhj329T4 Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jun 30 11:37:40 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:37:40 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: <0stoduio97vdcsh1whomfogb.1435689460774@email.android.com> http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/06/30/what-dick-gregory-says-about-the-song-amazing-grace-link-to-slavery-will-blow-your-mind/? Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
Date:06/30/2015 12:46 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
To get a better understanding of my reply to Henry this morning, Watch "Cornel West on Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, Trans Rights, and B.B. King | #GRITtv" on YouTube https://youtu.be/nHsHhj329T4 Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 13:06:37 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:06:37 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> Message-ID: <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Greg, I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to whether Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context.? I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an actual use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would like a theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. Henry > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use of a given code/style? > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that has properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the contrary? > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > David? > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > Greg > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. >> >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. >> >> With respect, >> Henry >> >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >>> >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by molefi Asante and others.... >>> >>> >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II >>> >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
>>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. >>> >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social semiotician. >>> >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We elected Obama! >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. Ruqaiya was >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that is, >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when you >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving imperatives, >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using polar >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also vary >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you hear >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America to >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white one). But >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of phonology >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and difference in >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply dialects. >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see today, >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you can >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to offer >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more difficult to >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. >>>> >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see that >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE, >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama doesn't >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he also >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear that >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned down >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and tried to >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked for but >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other audience, the >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of irony >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is some >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating that >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). This lack >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", has >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya would >>>> call coding orientation. >>>> >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see irony >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, and to >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" which is >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a noun--"development"--so >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in other >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother tongue >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") and the >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, it's an >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk about >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical metaphors, >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are required >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class jobs). >>>> >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding orientation" to >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my original >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER would >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough to >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big effect >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part of >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at all >>>> linked to grammar). >>>> >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who argued >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related to >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully determined by >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common underlying >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. >>>> >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that some were >>>> better dressed. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: Studies in >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of code-switching? And >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' directed >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? >>>>> >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning another >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which is >>>>> ever >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula Towsey's and >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like >>>>> Children, >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with what >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code orientation" in >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her >>>>> "exotropic >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in which she >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with Labov, >>>>> who >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there was >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories were >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow shaped >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that some >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories are >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" cannot be >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to be >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories and >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies produce >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code orientations". >>>>> Some >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take the >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to >>>>> ?arbitrary? >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think this is >>>>> an >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure to >>>>> be a >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of >>>>> ways. >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society that >>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and was >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes >>>>> (I >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months ago >>>>> when >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an extension >>>>> of >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. >>>>> concepts, >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. nouns/verbs, >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any >>>>>>> principled >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some languages >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a >>>>> whole >>>>>>>> wording. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic model >>>>> we >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even >>>>> logical >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more like >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, words >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating >>>>> them >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to non-proportional >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than >>>>>>> universal >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something >>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural "s" >>>>>>> always >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is essentially a >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to >>>>> proportional >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car horns). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, >>>>> local/general >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess that >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but grammar >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of course, >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but when >>>>> you >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that will >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you have >>>>>>> already >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable singular >>>>>>> noun >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, grammatical >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really means: it >>>>>>> means >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the area >>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the development >>>>> of >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of wordings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew personally >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he and >>>>> Luria >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these grammars that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and then it >>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was thinking of a >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She was an >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident detractor. >>>>> In >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting at: >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely >>>>>>> structural >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But Saussure >>>>> was >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid >>>>> impermeable >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's notion of >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we find >>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised me at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more than >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians were able >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he explicitly >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking and >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking >>>>> about >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). In >>>>> some >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter One >>>>> of >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut from >>>>> the >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one >>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic model of >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the associative >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was >>>>> working >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same time >>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal would >>>>> have >>>>>>>> approved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the past >>>>> 24 >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century ago, in >>>>>>> fact >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave Vygotsky >>>>> for >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a linguist, >>>>> that >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a theory >>>>> to >>>>>>>>> use. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but >>>>>>> knowing >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten around to >>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and LSV to >>>>>>>>> develop one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carol >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you are >>>>>>> right, >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding Ruqaiya?s >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, Ruqaiya >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very important: a >>>>>>> theory >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially seems >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s not just >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a gap >>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this very >>>>>>> gap >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since Vera >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took me >>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if cognitive >>>>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on this, >>>>> but >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have said >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are problems with >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written about the >>>>>>>>> lack >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive psychology >>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for Ruqaiya that >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I don?t >>>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive grammar >>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. It >>>>>>> brings >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the >>>>> festschrift, >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for Ruqaiya, >>>>>>> Henry. >>>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody whose >>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than ten >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the patronizing to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the stuff >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all the >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it will >>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at Macquarie >>>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. So I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always do--just >>>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can command >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with it. >>>>> You >>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I posted >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry point >>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, should >>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less interesting >>>>> than >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The work >>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> fairy >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an >>>>> instance >>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah was >>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" >>>>>>>>> (orientation, >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially reduces >>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. >>>>>>> Lukin's >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very >>>>>>> charming >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while you >>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath you >>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe singe your >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward public >>>>>>>>>> speaker: >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL she >>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of the >>>>> whole >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about would >>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to the >>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> then... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really >>>>>>>>> stopped; >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to >>>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David, >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an article >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes straight to >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link seems to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I don?t see >>>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not sure I >>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me how my >>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative >>>>> festschrift? >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a >>>>>>> commemorative >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special issue, >>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read and >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more or >>>>> less >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So >>>>> another >>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy tales; by >>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. >>>>> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, there's >>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of generalized text >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a >>>>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is not >>>>>>>>>> located >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a way. >>>>> Very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of will >>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how >>>>> little >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> knew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading >>>>> more. >>>>>>>>> Not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: >>>>>>>>> Grammar! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to >>>>> systemic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, as >>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia article on >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who set out >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight was that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going to >>>>>>> focus >>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical derivations. >>>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when children's >>>>> word >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to tell >>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next >>>>>>>>> month--I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and may >>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid noughties. >>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, >>>>> Bernstein >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya passed away >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, brought on >>>>> by >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened her >>>>> body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for some >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure you that >>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and determined as >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next week. >>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be posted when >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly event >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, later >>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable which >>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see >>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through it* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa >> >> > From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 30 14:11:59 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:11:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE Winter Conference Call for Proposals is attached Message-ID: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/ I encourage one and all to take a look at this call and go to the website for all past issues and other features. Best,Peter [cid:image001.jpg@01D0B357.DC8FC280] -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28886 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/78d0219d/attachment-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JoLLE@UGA 2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 749125 bytes Desc: JoLLE@UGA 2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/78d0219d/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.htm Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/78d0219d/attachment-0001.pl From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 14:44:21 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 06:44:21 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Message-ID: Everybody: First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. And even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to his use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments on Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse so that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not only an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have the right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is called "justice"). Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, and I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it relevant. But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the distinction between competence and performance. Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly volitional: you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed raised in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect is a guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), and I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into the dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it deliberately as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you could have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect is a distinction of the user, and not of the use. The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other factors which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is specified while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who grew up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on what you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it sounds and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is not at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation is a pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic variability, and it is related causally to class. Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance--in fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of "communicative competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something is linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such dichotomies are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not available for marriage to material performances: we can never really know, for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying competence is there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the performed. David Kellogg On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Greg, > I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to whether > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of > code/style, speaker, and context.? > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an actual > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would like a > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. > Henry > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use of a > given code/style? > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that has > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the > contrary? > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > > David? > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > > Greg > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, > he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed > with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I > didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria > and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always > have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > >> > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. > >> > >> With respect, > >> Henry > >> > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in > front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at > reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by > molefi Asante and others.... > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > >>> > >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com>
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00) >
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
> >>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the > American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. > What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades > back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, > language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. > More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand > Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think > that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a > second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > >>> > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social > semiotician. > >>> > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We > elected Obama! > >>> > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. > Ruqaiya was > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that > is, > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when > you > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving > imperatives, > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using > polar > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also > vary > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you > hear > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America > to > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white > one). But > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > phonology > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and > difference in > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > dialects. > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see > today, > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you > can > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to > offer > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more > difficult to > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > >>>> > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see > that > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English > (AAVE, > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama > doesn't > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he > also > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear > that > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned > down > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and > tried to > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked > for but > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other > audience, the > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of > irony > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is > some > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating > that > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). > This lack > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", > has > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya > would > >>>> call coding orientation. > >>>> > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see > irony > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, > and to > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" > which is > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a > noun--"development"--so > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in > other > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother > tongue > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") > and the > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, > it's an > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk > about > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical > metaphors, > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are > required > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class > jobs). > >>>> > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding > orientation" to > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my > original > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER > would > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough > to > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big > effect > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part > of > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at > all > >>>> linked to grammar). > >>>> > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who > argued > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related > to > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully > determined by > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common > underlying > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that > some were > >>>> better dressed. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi David, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: > Studies in > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of > code-switching? And > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' > directed > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > >>>>> > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning > another > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which > is > >>>>> ever > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula > Towsey's and > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like > >>>>> Children, > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with > what > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code > orientation" in > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her > >>>>> "exotropic > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in > which she > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with > Labov, > >>>>> who > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there > was > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories > were > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow > shaped > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that > some > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories > are > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" > cannot be > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to > be > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories > and > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies > produce > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code > orientations". > >>>>> Some > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take > the > >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > >>>>> ?arbitrary? > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think > this is > >>>>> an > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure > to > >>>>> be a > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > >>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of > >>>>> ways. > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society > that > >>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and > was > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of > Nantes > >>>>> (I > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months > ago > >>>>> when > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an > extension > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > >>>>> concepts, > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > nouns/verbs, > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > >>>>>>> principled > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some > languages > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a > >>>>> whole > >>>>>>>> wording. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic > model > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even > >>>>> logical > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more > like > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, > words > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, > relating > >>>>> them > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to > non-proportional > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than > >>>>>>> universal > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > >>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural > "s" > >>>>>>> always > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is > essentially a > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > >>>>> proportional > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car > horns). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > >>>>> local/general > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess > that > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but > grammar > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of > course, > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but > when > >>>>> you > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that > will > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you > have > >>>>>>> already > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable > singular > >>>>>>> noun > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, > grammatical > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really > means: it > >>>>>>> means > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the > area > >>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the > development > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of > wordings. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew > personally > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he > and > >>>>> Luria > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these > grammars that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and > then it > >>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was > thinking of a > >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She > was an > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident > detractor. > >>>>> In > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting > at: > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > >>>>>>> structural > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But > Saussure > >>>>> was > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > >>>>> impermeable > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's > notion of > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we > find > >>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised > me at > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more > than > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians > were able > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute > force. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he > explicitly > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking > and > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking > >>>>> about > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). > In > >>>>> some > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter > One > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut > from > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one > >>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic > model of > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the > associative > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was > >>>>> working > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same > time > >>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal > would > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>> approved. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the > past > >>>>> 24 > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century > ago, in > >>>>>>> fact > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave > Vygotsky > >>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a > linguist, > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a > theory > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> use. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but > >>>>>>> knowing > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten > around to > >>>>>>> it, > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and > LSV to > >>>>>>>>> develop one. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Carol > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you > are > >>>>>>> right, > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding > Ruqaiya?s > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, > Ruqaiya > >>>>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very > important: a > >>>>>>> theory > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially > seems > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s > not just > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a > gap > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this > very > >>>>>>> gap > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since > Vera > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took > me > >>>>>>> under > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if > cognitive > >>>>>>>>> grammar > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on > this, > >>>>> but > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have > said > >>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are > problems with > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written > about the > >>>>>>>>> lack > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive > psychology > >>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for > Ruqaiya that > >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I > don?t > >>>>>>> mean > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive > grammar > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. > It > >>>>>>> brings > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > >>>>> festschrift, > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for > Ruqaiya, > >>>>>>> Henry. > >>>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody > whose > >>>>>>> main > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than > ten > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the > patronizing to > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the > stuff > >>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all > the > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it > will > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at > Macquarie > >>>>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. > So I > >>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always > do--just > >>>>>>>>>> start > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can > command > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with > it. > >>>>> You > >>>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I > posted > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> link > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry > point > >>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, > should > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less > interesting > >>>>> than > >>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The > work > >>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> fairy > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an > >>>>> instance > >>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah > was > >>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > >>>>>>>>> (orientation, > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially > reduces > >>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. > >>>>>>> Lukin's > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very > >>>>>>> charming > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while > you > >>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath > you > >>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe > singe your > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward > public > >>>>>>>>>> speaker: > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL > she > >>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of > the > >>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about > would > >>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to > the > >>>>>>> end, > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> then... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > >>>>>>>>> stopped; > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > >>>>>>>>> practice. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> David, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an > article > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes > straight to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link > seems to > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I > don?t see > >>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not > sure I > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> help > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me > how my > >>>>>>>>>> response > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > >>>>> festschrift? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > >>>>>>> commemorative > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special > issue, > >>>>>>>>> along > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read > and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more > or > >>>>> less > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So > >>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>> thing > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy > tales; by > >>>>>>> far > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>>>> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, > there's > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of > generalized text > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > >>>>>>>>>> production. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is > not > >>>>>>>>>> located > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a > way. > >>>>> Very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of > will > >>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how > >>>>> little > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading > >>>>> more. > >>>>>>>>> Not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > >>>>>>>>> Grammar! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to > >>>>> systemic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, > as > >>>>> Mike > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see > that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia > article on > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who > set out > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight > was that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going > to > >>>>>>> focus > >>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical > derivations. > >>>>> As > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when > children's > >>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to > tell > >>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and > may > >>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid > noughties. > >>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> was a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, > >>>>> Bernstein > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya > passed away > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, > brought on > >>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened > her > >>>>> body. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for > some > >>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure > you that > >>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and > determined as > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>> know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next > week. > >>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be > posted when > >>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly > event > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, > later > >>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > which > >>>>> makes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > >>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through > it* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >> > >> > > > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Jun 30 15:23:03 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Message-ID: Sorry for the incoherence....not the rage!!!! Dr. Paul C. Mocombe President The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc. www.mocombeian.com? www.readingroomcurriculum.com www.paulcmocombe.info? Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities? www.routledge.com/9780415714372 -------- Original message -------- From: David Kellogg Date: 06/30/2015 5:44 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan Everybody: First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. And even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to his use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments on Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse so that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not only an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have the right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is called "justice"). Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, and I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it relevant. But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the distinction between competence and performance. Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly volitional: you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed raised in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect is a guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), and I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into the dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it deliberately as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you could have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect is a distinction of the user, and not of the use. The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other factors which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is specified while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who grew up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on what you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it sounds and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is not at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation is a pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic variability, and it is related causally to class. Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance--in fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of "communicative competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something is linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such dichotomies are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not available for marriage to material performances: we can never really know, for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying competence is there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the performed. David Kellogg On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Greg, > I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to whether > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of > code/style, speaker, and context.? > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an actual > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would like a > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. > Henry > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use of a > given code/style? > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that has > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the > contrary? > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > > David? > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > > Greg > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, > he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so disappointed > with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I > didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of euphoria > and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always > have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that AME > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > >> > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. > >> > >> With respect, > >> Henry > >> > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in > front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at > reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak to > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted by > molefi Asante and others.... > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > >>> > >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com>
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00) >
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
> >>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. Obama > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community of > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin Luther > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the > American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. > What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning for > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many decades > back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. And > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, > language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. > More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to understand > Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us who > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think > that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a > second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the world. > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety can > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax (word > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > >>> > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social > semiotician. > >>> > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is credible > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. We > elected Obama! > >>> > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. > Ruqaiya was > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE (that > is, > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when > you > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving > imperatives, > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using > polar > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also > vary > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you > hear > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from America > to > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white > one). But > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really provided > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > phonology > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and > difference in > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > dialects. > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see > today, > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you > can > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can to > offer > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more > difficult to > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > >>>> > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see > that > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English > (AAVE, > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama > doesn't > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he > also > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but God > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear > that > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously gunned > down > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and > tried to > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked > for but > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other > audience, the > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of > irony > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is > some > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating > that > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). > This lack > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of "grace", > has > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya > would > >>>> call coding orientation. > >>>> > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to see > irony > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, > and to > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" > which is > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a > noun--"development"--so > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in > other > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" into > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother > tongue > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") > and the > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, > it's an > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk > about > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical > metaphors, > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are > required > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle class > jobs). > >>>> > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the argument > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and even > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding > orientation" to > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my > original > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER > would > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart enough > to > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big > effect > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part > of > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he was > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed that > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky was > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at > all > >>>> linked to grammar). > >>>> > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN who > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who > argued > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were related > to > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully > determined by > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common > underlying > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, only > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that some > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that > some were > >>>> better dressed. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi David, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: > Studies in > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of > code-switching? And > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' > directed > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > >>>>> > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning > another > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which > is > >>>>> ever > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula > Towsey's and > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like > >>>>> Children, > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with > what > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code > orientation" in > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her > >>>>> "exotropic > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in > which she > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with > Labov, > >>>>> who > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, there > was > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic categories > were > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow > shaped > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that > some > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories > are > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" > cannot be > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has to > be > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories > and > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies > produce > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to their > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code > orientations". > >>>>> Some > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I take > the > >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > >>>>> ?arbitrary? > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think > this is > >>>>> an > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and Saussure > to > >>>>> be a > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > >>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number of > >>>>> ways. > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and society > that > >>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and > was > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of > Nantes > >>>>> (I > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months > ago > >>>>> when > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, the > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an > extension > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > >>>>> concepts, > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > nouns/verbs, > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > >>>>>>> principled > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some > languages > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language by a > >>>>> whole > >>>>>>>> wording. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic > model > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even > >>>>> logical > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much more > like > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That is, > words > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, > relating > >>>>> them > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to > non-proportional > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather than > >>>>>>> universal > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > >>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural > "s" > >>>>>>> always > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is > essentially a > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them to > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > >>>>> proportional > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car > horns). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > >>>>> local/general > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can guess > that > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but > grammar > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of > course, > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but > when > >>>>> you > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that > will > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you > have > >>>>>>> already > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable > singular > >>>>>>> noun > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, > grammatical > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really > means: it > >>>>>>> means > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the > area > >>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the > development > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of > wordings. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew > personally > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he > and > >>>>> Luria > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full of > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these > grammars that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and > then it > >>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the Prague > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was > thinking of a > >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She > was an > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident > detractor. > >>>>> In > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was getting > at: > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > >>>>>>> structural > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But > Saussure > >>>>> was > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > >>>>> impermeable > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's > notion of > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we > find > >>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised > me at > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing more > than > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians > were able > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute > force. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he > explicitly > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking > and > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really talking > >>>>> about > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in HDHMF). > In > >>>>> some > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, Chapter > One > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut > from > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean one > >>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic > model of > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the > associative > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was > >>>>> working > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same > time > >>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal > would > >>>>> have > >>>>>>>> approved. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over the > past > >>>>> 24 > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century > ago, in > >>>>>>> fact > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave > Vygotsky > >>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a > linguist, > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a > theory > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> use. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - but > >>>>>>> knowing > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten > around to > >>>>>>> it, > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and > LSV to > >>>>>>>>> develop one. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Carol > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you > are > >>>>>>> right, > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding > Ruqaiya?s > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, > Ruqaiya > >>>>>>> seems > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very > important: a > >>>>>>> theory > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance especially > seems > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s > not just > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a > gap > >>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that this > very > >>>>>>> gap > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since > Vera > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, took > me > >>>>>>> under > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if > cognitive > >>>>>>>>> grammar > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on > this, > >>>>> but > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you have > said > >>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are > problems with > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written > about the > >>>>>>>>> lack > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive > psychology > >>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for > Ruqaiya that > >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I > don?t > >>>>>>> mean > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive > grammar > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse ?style?. > It > >>>>>>> brings > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > >>>>> festschrift, > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for > Ruqaiya, > >>>>>>> Henry. > >>>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody > whose > >>>>>>> main > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more than > ten > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the > patronizing to > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made the > stuff > >>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by all > the > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it > will > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at > Macquarie > >>>>>>> (e.g. > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. > So I > >>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always > do--just > >>>>>>>>>> start > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can > command > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with > it. > >>>>> You > >>>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I > posted > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> link > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry > point > >>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, > should > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less > interesting > >>>>> than > >>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The > work > >>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> fairy > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an > >>>>> instance > >>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah > was > >>>>>>>>> working > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > >>>>>>>>> (orientation, > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially > reduces > >>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested Dr. > >>>>>>> Lukin's > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to read > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time very > >>>>>>> charming > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires while > you > >>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath > you > >>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe > singe your > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward > public > >>>>>>>>>> speaker: > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL > she > >>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of > the > >>>>> whole > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about > would > >>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes to > the > >>>>>>> end, > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> then... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never really > >>>>>>>>> stopped; > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother to > >>>>>>>>> practice. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> David, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an > article > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes > straight to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link > seems to > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I > don?t see > >>>>>>>>> yet > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not > sure I > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> help > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me > how my > >>>>>>>>>> response > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > >>>>> festschrift? > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > >>>>>>> commemorative > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special > issue, > >>>>>>>>> along > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to read > and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky more > or > >>>>> less > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So > >>>>> another > >>>>>>>>>> thing > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy > tales; by > >>>>>>> far > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > >>>>> > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, > there's > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of > generalized text > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for such a > >>>>>>>>>> production. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self is > not > >>>>>>>>>> located > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a > way. > >>>>> Very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence of > will > >>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by how > >>>>> little > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by reading > >>>>> more. > >>>>>>>>> Not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to Vygotsky: > >>>>>>>>> Grammar! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to > >>>>> systemic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly to > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, > as > >>>>> Mike > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to see > that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia > article on > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who > set out > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight > was that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably going > to > >>>>>>> focus > >>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical > derivations. > >>>>> As > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when > children's > >>>>> word > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to > tell > >>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and > may > >>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid > noughties. > >>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> was a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, > >>>>> Bernstein > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya > passed away > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, > brought on > >>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened > her > >>>>> body. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and for > some > >>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure > you that > >>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and > determined as > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>> know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next > week. > >>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be > posted when > >>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly > event > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, > later > >>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > which > >>>>> makes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > >>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through > it* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > >> > >> > > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 16:24:20 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:24:20 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Message-ID: David, Thanks for this elaboration (!) of Hasan, Bernstein, and a bit of Halliday. Very dense and lots for me to learn. I'm absorbing it as best I can... Two clarification that might help me in my understanding: 1. Are your a) and b) actual recorded examples of talk? I found the use of the habitual be to feel a bit out of place (unless the point was that the parent was going to repeatedly (habitually) be hitting the child upside their face). 2. If these are actual examples of talk, could you help me make more direct links between what Bernstein/Hasan have to say about these examples and the examples themselves? I think I'm getting the point about code vs. dialect vs. register but I'm confused about the specific analysis you offer when you write: "Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards interdependence." There is a leap here (perhaps justified) between the examples as I read them and the claims about orientation and as a result I wasn't clear how these features were manifest in the examples. Sorry for being so restricted in my reading, and many thanks for your multiple elaborations! -greg On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Everybody: > > First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. And > even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to his > use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments on > Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and > heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse so > that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve > "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's > gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not only > an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have the > right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is called > "justice"). > > Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, and > I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's > Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it relevant. > But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction > between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the distinction > between competence and performance. > > Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: > > a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. > b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. > > The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the > semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the > "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly volitional: > you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also > choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the > inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is > voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed raised > in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a > minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect is a > guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), and > I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language > user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, > meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine > dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into the > dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it deliberately > as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful > (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you could > have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect is > a distinction of the user, and not of the use. > > The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the > phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would > concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his > argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for > copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other factors > which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is specified > while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now > rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the > consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although > unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a > threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. > > But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who grew > up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it > immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of > Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft > (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, > interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on what > you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your > ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding > orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules > that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards > individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the > orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards > interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it sounds > and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated > coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike > register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is not > at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation is a > pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic > variability, and it is related causally to class. > > Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance--in > fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of "communicative > competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something is > linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically > appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and > whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such dichotomies > are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not > available for marriage to material performances: we can never really know, > for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, > psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying competence is > there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly > transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the performed. > > David Kellogg > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > Greg, > > I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to whether > > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > > > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property of > > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of > > code/style, speaker, and context.? > > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an actual > > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would > like a > > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. > > Henry > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes > > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use > of a > > given code/style? > > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that > has > > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that it > > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to the > > contrary? > > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of deployment > > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the speaker > > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > > > David? > > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this should > > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > > > Greg > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > >> > > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, > > he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good > > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so > disappointed > > with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this country, I > > didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. Maybe > > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of > euphoria > > and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground where > > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with those > > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English Vernacular? > > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will always > > have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that > AME > > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black > > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > > >> > > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion of > > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red herring. > > >> > > >> With respect, > > >> Henry > > >> > > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in > > front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white middle > > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at > > reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to speak > to > > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, semantic, > > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted > by > > molefi Asante and others.... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > > >>> > > >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY > SHONERD < > > hshonerd@gmail.com>
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00) > >
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
> > >>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of > > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. > Obama > > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community > of > > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin > Luther > > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same > > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the > > American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. > > What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s speaking. > > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where > > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think > > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning > for > > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is > > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The > > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many > decades > > back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. > And > > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are > > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If so, > > language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be possible. > > More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to > understand > > Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us > who > > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I think > > that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first > > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning a > > second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other > > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the > world. > > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety > can > > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum > > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax > (word > > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than the > > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning can > > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but > > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > > >>> > > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of this, > > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And for > > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about > > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social > > semiotician. > > >>> > > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. > > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was > > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is > credible > > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. > We > > elected Obama! > > >>> > > >>> Henry > > >>> > > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t as > > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the way > > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. > > Ruqaiya was > > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE > (that > > is, > > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane when > > you > > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving > > imperatives, > > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess using > > polar > > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could also > > vary > > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you > > hear > > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from > America > > to > > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white > > one). But > > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really > provided > > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > > phonology > > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and > > difference in > > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > > dialects. > > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see > > today, > > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and you > > can > > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can > to > > offer > > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more > > difficult to > > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and black > > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > > >>>> > > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will see > > that > > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular English > > (AAVE, > > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama > > doesn't > > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he > > also > > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At one > > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but > God > > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it clear > > that > > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously > gunned > > down > > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and > > tried to > > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace unasked > > for but > > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other > > audience, the > > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace of > > irony > > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there is > > some > > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, demonstrating > > that > > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). > > This lack > > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of > "grace", > > has > > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya > > would > > >>>> call coding orientation. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to > see > > irony > > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, > > and to > > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" > > which is > > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a > > noun--"development"--so > > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed in > > other > > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" > into > > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother > > tongue > > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") > > and the > > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, > > it's an > > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to talk > > about > > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical > > metaphors, > > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are > > required > > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle > class > > jobs). > > >>>> > > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the > argument > > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and > even > > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding > > orientation" to > > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my > > original > > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER > > would > > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart > enough > > to > > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big > > effect > > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important part > > of > > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he > was > > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed > that > > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky > was > > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not at > > all > > >>>> linked to grammar). > > >>>> > > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN > who > > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN who > > argued > > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were > related > > to > > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully > > determined by > > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common > > underlying > > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, > only > > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > > >>>> > > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that > some > > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that > > some were > > >>>> better dressed. > > >>>> > > >>>> David Kellogg > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer < > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi David, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: > > Studies in > > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of > > code-switching? And > > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' > > directed > > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Martin > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning > > another > > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem which > > is > > >>>>> ever > > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula > > Towsey's and > > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's Concepts: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think Like > > >>>>> Children, > > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with > > what > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code > > orientation" in > > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her > > >>>>> "exotropic > > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in > > which she > > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with > > Labov, > > >>>>> who > > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, > there > > was > > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic > categories > > were > > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were somehow > > shaped > > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that > > some > > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic categories > > are > > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" > > cannot be > > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has > to > > be > > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in laboratories > > and > > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies > > produce > > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to > their > > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code > > orientations". > > >>>>> Some > > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are not. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I > take > > the > > >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > > >>>>> ?arbitrary? > > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think > > this is > > >>>>> an > > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and > Saussure > > to > > >>>>> be a > > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > > >>>>>>> Henry > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a number > of > > >>>>> ways. > > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and > society > > that > > >>>>>>> had > > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre and > > was > > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of > > Nantes > > >>>>> (I > > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few months > > ago > > >>>>> when > > >>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, > the > > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an > > extension > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > > >>>>> concepts, > > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > > nouns/verbs, > > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't any > > >>>>>>> principled > > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some > > languages > > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language > by a > > >>>>> whole > > >>>>>>>> wording. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the basic > > model > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or even > > >>>>> logical > > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much > more > > like > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That > is, > > words > > >>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary is > > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, > > relating > > >>>>> them > > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to > > non-proportional > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather > than > > >>>>>>> universal > > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means something > > >>>>>>> different > > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like plural > > "s" > > >>>>>>> always > > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is > > essentially a > > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them > to > > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > > >>>>> proportional > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car > > horns). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > > >>>>> local/general > > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can > guess > > that > > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but > > grammar > > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of > > course, > > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, but > > when > > >>>>> you > > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that > > will > > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you > > have > > >>>>>>> already > > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable > > singular > > >>>>>>> noun > > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, > > grammatical > > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really > > means: it > > >>>>>>> means > > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely the > > area > > >>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the > > development > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of > > wordings. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew > > personally > > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that he > > and > > >>>>> Luria > > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is full > of > > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these > > grammars that > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and > > then it > > >>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the > Prague > > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was > > thinking of a > > >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She > > was an > > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident > > detractor. > > >>>>> In > > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was > getting > > at: > > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost purely > > >>>>>>> structural > > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But > > Saussure > > >>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > > >>>>> impermeable > > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's > > notion of > > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we > > find > > >>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most exercised > > me at > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing > more > > than > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians > > were able > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their absolute > > force. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he > > explicitly > > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of Thinking > > and > > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really > talking > > >>>>> about > > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in > HDHMF). > > In > > >>>>> some > > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, > Chapter > > One > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been cut > > from > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean > one > > >>>>> (e.g. > > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic > > model of > > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the > > associative > > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he was > > >>>>> working > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the same > > time > > >>>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal > > would > > >>>>> have > > >>>>>>>> approved. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> a) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over > the > > past > > >>>>> 24 > > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century > > ago, in > > >>>>>>> fact > > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave > > Vygotsky > > >>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a > > linguist, > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a > > theory > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> use. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - > but > > >>>>>>> knowing > > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten > > around to > > >>>>>>> it, > > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya and > > LSV to > > >>>>>>>>> develop one. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Carol > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure you > > are > > >>>>>>> right, > > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding > > Ruqaiya?s > > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, > > Ruqaiya > > >>>>>>> seems > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very > > important: a > > >>>>>>> theory > > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance > especially > > seems > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s > > not just > > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but apparently a > > gap > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that > this > > very > > >>>>>>> gap > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this since > > Vera > > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, > took > > me > > >>>>>>> under > > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if > > cognitive > > >>>>>>>>> grammar > > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on > > this, > > >>>>> but > > >>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you > have > > said > > >>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are > > problems with > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written > > about the > > >>>>>>>>> lack > > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive > > psychology > > >>>>> (e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for > > Ruqaiya that > > >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince me. I > > don?t > > >>>>>>> mean > > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive > > grammar > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse > ?style?. > > It > > >>>>>>> brings > > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > > >>>>> festschrift, > > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg < > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for > > Ruqaiya, > > >>>>>>> Henry. > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm > > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be somebody > > whose > > >>>>>>> main > > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more > than > > ten > > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the > > patronizing to > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made > the > > stuff > > >>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by > all > > the > > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but it > > will > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at > > Macquarie > > >>>>>>> (e.g. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any kind. > > So I > > >>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always > > do--just > > >>>>>>>>>> start > > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can > > command > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something with > > it. > > >>>>> You > > >>>>>>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I > > posted > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>> link > > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious entry > > point > > >>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>> most > > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, > > should > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less > > interesting > > >>>>> than > > >>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. The > > work > > >>>>> on > > >>>>>>>>>> fairy > > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just an > > >>>>> instance > > >>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that Ruqaiyah > > was > > >>>>>>>>> working > > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > > >>>>>>>>> (orientation, > > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially > > reduces > > >>>>>>> all > > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested > Dr. > > >>>>>>> Lukin's > > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to > read > > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time > very > > >>>>>>> charming > > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires > while > > you > > >>>>>>> were > > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for breath > > you > > >>>>> were > > >>>>>>>>>> going > > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe > > singe your > > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward > > public > > >>>>>>>>>> speaker: > > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do SFL > > she > > >>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much of > > the > > >>>>> whole > > >>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about > > would > > >>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one of > > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's > > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes > to > > the > > >>>>>>> end, > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>> then... > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never > really > > >>>>>>>>> stopped; > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother > to > > >>>>>>>>> practice. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > > hshonerd@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> David, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an > > article > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes > > straight to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link > > seems to > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>> an > > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I > > don?t see > > >>>>>>>>> yet > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not > > sure I > > >>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>> help > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell me > > how my > > >>>>>>>>>> response > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > > >>>>> festschrift? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg < > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > > >>>>>>> commemorative > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special > > issue, > > >>>>>>>>> along > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to > read > > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky > more > > or > > >>>>> less > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. So > > >>>>> another > > >>>>>>>>>> thing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy > > tales; by > > >>>>>>> far > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on fables. > > >>>>> > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, > > there's > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>> good > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of > > generalized text > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for > such a > > >>>>>>>>>> production. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self > is > > not > > >>>>>>>>>> located > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is a > > way. > > >>>>> Very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence > of > > will > > >>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by > how > > >>>>> little > > >>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by > reading > > >>>>> more. > > >>>>>>>>> Not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to > Vygotsky: > > >>>>>>>>> Grammar! > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed to > > >>>>> systemic > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly > to > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there is, > > as > > >>>>> Mike > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to > see > > that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia > > article on > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met who > > set out > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight > > was that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably > going > > to > > >>>>>>> focus > > >>>>>>>>>> too > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical > > derivations. > > >>>>> As > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when > > children's > > >>>>> word > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy to > > tell > > >>>>> when > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany next > > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work and > > may > > >>>>> even > > >>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid > > noughties. > > >>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>> was a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, > > >>>>> Bernstein > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya > > passed away > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, > > brought on > > >>>>> by > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so weakened > > her > > >>>>> body. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and > for > > some > > >>>>>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure > > you that > > >>>>>>> he > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and > > determined as > > >>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>> know > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next > > week. > > >>>>> The > > >>>>>>>>>> time > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be > > posted when > > >>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger scholarly > > event > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving forward, > > later > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, an > > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > > which > > >>>>> makes > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see > > >>>>>>> something > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs Through > > it* > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 16:59:47 2015 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:59:47 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a really intense conversation to be listening in on. I want to amplify one voice that hasn?t yet been introduced: I just finished reading Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie?s stunning novel ?Americanah,? which interweaves a fictional narrative with commentaries on race. The protagonist is a black Nigerian woman who moves to America and becomes a ?prominent race blogger?; she says she ?discovered race in America and it fascinated me.? The protagonist?or, if you prefer, Adichie, writes this about Obama: So lots of folk?mostly non-black?say Obama?s not black, he?s biracial, multiracial, black-and-white, anything but just black. Because his mother was white. But race is not biology; race is sociology. Race is not genotype; race is phenotype. Race matters because of racism. And racism is absurd because it?s about how you look. Not about the blood you have. It?s about the shade of your skin and the shape of your nose and the kink of your hair. Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass had white fathers. Imagine them saying they were not black. Imagine Obama, skin the color of a toasted almond, hair kinky, saying to a census worker?I?m kind of white. Sure you are, she?ll say. Many American Blacks have a white person in their ancestry, because white slave owners liked to go a-raping in the slave quarters at night. But if you come out looking dark, that?s it?. In America, you don?t get to decide what race you are. It is decided for you. Barack Obama, looking as he does, would have had to sit in the back of the bus fifty years ago. If a random black guy commits a crime today, Barack Obama could be stopped and questioned for fitting the profile. And what would that profile be? ?Black Man." Jacob (Jenna) McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu On Jun 30, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: David, Thanks for this elaboration (!) of Hasan, Bernstein, and a bit of Halliday. Very dense and lots for me to learn. I'm absorbing it as best I can... Two clarification that might help me in my understanding: 1. Are your a) and b) actual recorded examples of talk? I found the use of the habitual be to feel a bit out of place (unless the point was that the parent was going to repeatedly (habitually) be hitting the child upside their face). 2. If these are actual examples of talk, could you help me make more direct links between what Bernstein/Hasan have to say about these examples and the examples themselves? I think I'm getting the point about code vs. dialect vs. register but I'm confused about the specific analysis you offer when you write: "Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards interdependence." There is a leap here (perhaps justified) between the examples as I read them and the claims about orientation and as a result I wasn't clear how these features were manifest in the examples. Sorry for being so restricted in my reading, and many thanks for your multiple elaborations! -greg On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: Everybody: First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. And even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to his use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments on Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse so that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not only an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have the right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is called "justice"). Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, and I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it relevant. But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the distinction between competence and performance. Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly volitional: you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed raised in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect is a guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), and I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into the dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it deliberately as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you could have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect is a distinction of the user, and not of the use. The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other factors which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is specified while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who grew up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on what you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it sounds and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is not at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation is a pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic variability, and it is related causally to class. Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance--in fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of "communicative competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something is linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such dichotomies are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not available for marriage to material performances: we can never really know, for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying competence is there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the performed. David Kellogg From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 17:10:02 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:10:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, I was trying to keep it short. The key text is: Hasan, R. (1973). Code, Register, and Social Dialect. In Bernstein, B. (ed.) Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Also: Halliday, M.A.K. (1972). Towards a Sociological Semantics. In Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 3, London: Continuum, pp. 323-354. The examples I gave were made up especially for you. I am not a native speaker of South Chicago English, but I remember thinking that "be" insertion is sometimes a sign of counteractuality (as in "They be sayin" as opposed to "they said" or "they say"), and so a sign of the conditional. That is, where North Chicago and Loop English will use "if" and then the future tense to express conditionality ("If you get that dirty, I'll smack you") South Chicago English uses the more direct form, the conjuntion "and", and then "be" insertion to suggest the conditional ("Get that dirty and I be hit yo up side yo face"). But I don't really know; this is one of those situations where we need an authentic speaker and not just a genuine one. Here are Hasan's examples (also made up). (10) If you climb up that wall you may hurt yourself. (11) You climb up that wall and I'll take a stick to you. (12) If you climb up that wall you may ruin your nice new shirt. (p. 69, but that's in my Chinese copy). Ruqaiya's point is that (10) and (12) differ in meaning but the difference doesn't cover the whole clause complex but only the result of the condition, whereas in (10) and (11) it covers the whole complex, including the way that the condition is worded: this suggests--but of course it doesn't prove--a more general, more genetic causation, rather than a merely functional one. I don't think any examples--Ruqaiya's or my own--are meant to be anything more than demonstrative, Greg. In order to see real evidence, we need very large data bases and some way of looking at significant wordings. This was done by Ruqaiya's student: Cloran, C. (1999) Contexts for learning. In Christie, F. (Ed) Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes. London: Continuum, pp. 31-65. She compares categories like "action", "commentary", "observation", "reflection", "report", "account", "generalization", "plan", "prediction", "conjecture" and "recount' (storytelling). The big differences came in "generalization" (elaborated code +) and "action" (restricted code +), and the differences were statistically highly significant (Mann Whitney test). David Kellogg On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > David, > Thanks for this elaboration (!) of Hasan, Bernstein, and a bit of Halliday. > Very dense and lots for me to learn. I'm absorbing it as best I can... > > Two clarification that might help me in my understanding: > > 1. Are your a) and b) actual recorded examples of talk? I found the use of > the habitual be to feel a bit out of place (unless the point was that the > parent was going to repeatedly (habitually) be hitting the child upside > their face). > > 2. If these are actual examples of talk, could you help me make more direct > links between what Bernstein/Hasan have to say about these examples and the > examples themselves? I think I'm getting the point about code vs. dialect > vs. register but I'm confused about the specific analysis you offer when > you write: > "Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the orientation > is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal > solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated > coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to > individual motivation, and towards interdependence." > > There is a leap here (perhaps justified) between the examples as I read > them and the claims about orientation and as a result I wasn't clear how > these features were manifest in the examples. > > Sorry for being so restricted in my reading, and many thanks for your > multiple elaborations! > > -greg > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Everybody: > > > > First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. > And > > even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to his > > use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments on > > Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and > > heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse so > > that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve > > "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's > > gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not > only > > an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have > the > > right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is > called > > "justice"). > > > > Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, > and > > I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's > > Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it relevant. > > But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction > > between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the distinction > > between competence and performance. > > > > Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: > > > > a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. > > b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. > > > > The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the > > semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the > > "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly > volitional: > > you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also > > choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the > > inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is > > voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed raised > > in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a > > minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect is a > > guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), > and > > I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language > > user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, > > meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine > > dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into the > > dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it deliberately > > as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful > > (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you could > > have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect > is > > a distinction of the user, and not of the use. > > > > The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the > > phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would > > concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his > > argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for > > copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other > factors > > which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is specified > > while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now > > rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the > > consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although > > unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a > > threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. > > > > But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who > grew > > up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it > > immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of > > Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft > > (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, > > interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on > what > > you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your > > ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding > > orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective rules > > that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards > > individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the > > orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards > > interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it > sounds > > and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated > > coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike > > register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is > not > > at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation is a > > pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic > > variability, and it is related causally to class. > > > > Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and > performance--in > > fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of > "communicative > > competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something > is > > linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically > > appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and > > whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such > dichotomies > > are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not > > available for marriage to material performances: we can never really > know, > > for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, > > psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying competence > is > > there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly > > transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the performed. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > > > Greg, > > > I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to whether > > > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > > > > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a property > of > > > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of > > > code/style, speaker, and context.? > > > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an actual > > > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would > > like a > > > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes > > > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the use > > of a > > > given code/style? > > > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing that > > has > > > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > > > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that > it > > > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to > the > > > contrary? > > > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of > deployment > > > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the > speaker > > > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > > > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > > > > David? > > > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this > should > > > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. Apparently, > > > he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not good > > > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so > > disappointed > > > with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this > country, I > > > didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. > Maybe > > > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of > > euphoria > > > and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground > where > > > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with > those > > > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English > Vernacular? > > > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will > always > > > have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in that > > AME > > > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the ?black > > > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > > > >> > > > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion > of > > > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red > herring. > > > >> > > > >> With respect, > > > >> Henry > > > >> > > > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > > > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in > > > front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white > middle > > > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at > > > reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to > speak > > to > > > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, > semantic, > > > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English highlighted > > by > > > molefi Asante and others.... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > > > >>> > > > >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY > > SHONERD < > > > hshonerd@gmail.com>
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00) > > >
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
> > > >>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of > > > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. > > Obama > > > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech community > > of > > > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin > > Luther > > > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he same > > > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the > > > American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the same. > > > What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s > speaking. > > > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and where > > > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I think > > > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of meaning > > for > > > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is > > > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The > > > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many > > decades > > > back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on lexicon. > > And > > > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are > > > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If > so, > > > language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be > possible. > > > More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to > > understand > > > Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of us > > who > > > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I > think > > > that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first > > > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes learning > a > > > second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other > > > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the > > world. > > > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language variety > > can > > > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical > continuum > > > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax > > (word > > > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than > the > > > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning > can > > > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but > > > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of > this, > > > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And > for > > > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about > > > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social > > > semiotician. > > > >>> > > > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? indeed. > > > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was > > > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is > > credible > > > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, baby. > > We > > > elected Obama! > > > >>> > > > >>> Henry > > > >>> > > > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t > as > > > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the > way > > > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. > > > Ruqaiya was > > > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE > > (that > > > is, > > > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane > when > > > you > > > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving > > > imperatives, > > > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess > using > > > polar > > > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could > also > > > vary > > > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing you > > > hear > > > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from > > America > > > to > > > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white > > > one). But > > > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really > > provided > > > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters of > > > phonology > > > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and > > > difference in > > > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not simply > > > dialects. > > > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to see > > > today, > > > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and > you > > > can > > > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you can > > to > > > offer > > > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more > > > difficult to > > > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and > black > > > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will > see > > > that > > > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular > English > > > (AAVE, > > > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama > > > doesn't > > > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: he > > > also > > > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > > > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At > one > > > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, but > > God > > > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it > clear > > > that > > > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously > > gunned > > > down > > > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race and > > > tried to > > > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace > unasked > > > for but > > > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other > > > audience, the > > > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace > of > > > irony > > > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although there > is > > > some > > > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, > demonstrating > > > that > > > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the user). > > > This lack > > > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of > > "grace", > > > has > > > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what Ruqaiya > > > would > > > >>>> call coding orientation. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us to > > see > > > irony > > > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative language, > > > and to > > > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" > > > which is > > > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a > > > noun--"development"--so > > > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed > in > > > other > > > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big break" > > into > > > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the mother > > > tongue > > > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous speech") > > > and the > > > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In fact, > > > it's an > > > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to > talk > > > about > > > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical > > > metaphors, > > > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that are > > > required > > > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle > > class > > > jobs). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the > > argument > > > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and > > even > > > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding > > > orientation" to > > > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in my > > > original > > > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein NEVER > > > would > > > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart > > enough > > > to > > > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a big > > > effect > > > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important > part > > > of > > > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this he > > was > > > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed > > that > > > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as Chomsky > > was > > > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and not > at > > > all > > > >>>> linked to grammar). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was BERNSTEIN > > who > > > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN > who > > > argued > > > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were > > related > > > to > > > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > > > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully > > > determined by > > > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common > > > underlying > > > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding orientations, > > only > > > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that > > some > > > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was that > > > some were > > > >>>> better dressed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer < > > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hi David, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: > > > Studies in > > > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of > > > code-switching? And > > > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' > > > directed > > > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Martin > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning > > > another > > > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem > which > > > is > > > >>>>> ever > > > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula > > > Towsey's and > > > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's > Concepts: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think > Like > > > >>>>> Children, > > > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned with > > > what > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code > > > orientation" in > > > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads her > > > >>>>> "exotropic > > > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in > > > which she > > > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict with > > > Labov, > > > >>>>> who > > > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, > > there > > > was > > > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic > > categories > > > were > > > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were > somehow > > > shaped > > > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying that > > > some > > > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic > categories > > > are > > > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" > > > cannot be > > > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that has > > to > > > be > > > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in > laboratories > > > and > > > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class societies > > > produce > > > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to > > their > > > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code > > > orientations". > > > >>>>> Some > > > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are > not. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > > hshonerd@gmail.com > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I > > take > > > the > > > >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > > > >>>>> ?arbitrary? > > > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I think > > > this is > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and > > Saussure > > > to > > > >>>>> be a > > > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the CHAT. > > > >>>>>>> Henry > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg < > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a > number > > of > > > >>>>> ways. > > > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the rationalist, > > > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and > > society > > > that > > > >>>>>>> had > > > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre > and > > > was > > > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of > > > Nantes > > > >>>>> (I > > > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few > months > > > ago > > > >>>>> when > > > >>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And linguistically, > > the > > > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an > > > extension > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > > > >>>>> concepts, > > > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > > > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > > > nouns/verbs, > > > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > > > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't > any > > > >>>>>>> principled > > > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what some > > > languages > > > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another language > > by a > > > >>>>> whole > > > >>>>>>>> wording. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the > basic > > > model > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or > even > > > >>>>> logical > > > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much > > more > > > like > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. That > > is, > > > words > > > >>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call vocabulary > is > > > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, > > > relating > > > >>>>> them > > > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to > > > non-proportional > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather > > than > > > >>>>>>> universal > > > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means > something > > > >>>>>>> different > > > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like > plural > > > "s" > > > >>>>>>> always > > > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is > > > essentially a > > > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating them > > to > > > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > > > >>>>> proportional > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car > > > horns). > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > > > >>>>> local/general > > > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can > > guess > > > that > > > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but > > > grammar > > > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of > > > course, > > > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, > but > > > when > > > >>>>> you > > > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution that > > > will > > > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that you > > > have > > > >>>>>>> already > > > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable > > > singular > > > >>>>>>> noun > > > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, > > > grammatical > > > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really > > > means: it > > > >>>>>>> means > > > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means for > > > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely > the > > > area > > > >>>>>>> which > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the > > > development > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of > > > wordings. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew > > > personally > > > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that > he > > > and > > > >>>>> Luria > > > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is > full > > of > > > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser known > > > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these > > > grammars that > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, and > > > then it > > > >>>>>>> was > > > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the > > Prague > > > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and Hasan. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was > > > thinking of a > > > >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. She > > > was an > > > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident > > > detractor. > > > >>>>> In > > > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was > > getting > > > at: > > > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost > purely > > > >>>>>>> structural > > > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But > > > Saussure > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > > > >>>>> impermeable > > > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for Saussure's > > > notion of > > > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations we > > > find > > > >>>>>>> between > > > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most > exercised > > > me at > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing > > more > > > than > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal grammarians > > > were able > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their > absolute > > > force. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he > > > explicitly > > > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of > Thinking > > > and > > > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really > > talking > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in > > HDHMF). > > > In > > > >>>>> some > > > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, > > Chapter > > > One > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been > cut > > > from > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a Saussurean > > one > > > >>>>> (e.g. > > > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's basic > > > model of > > > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the > > > associative > > > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he > was > > > >>>>> working > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the > same > > > time > > > >>>>>>> much > > > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. Port-Royal > > > would > > > >>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>> approved. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> a) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > > > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments over > > the > > > past > > > >>>>> 24 > > > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a century > > > ago, in > > > >>>>>>> fact > > > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave > > > Vygotsky > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a > > > linguist, > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have had a > > > theory > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> use. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never know - > > but > > > >>>>>>> knowing > > > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten > > > around to > > > >>>>>>> it, > > > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya > and > > > LSV to > > > >>>>>>>>> develop one. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Best > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD > > > > wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure > you > > > are > > > >>>>>>> right, > > > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding > > > Ruqaiya?s > > > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, > > > Ruqaiya > > > >>>>>>> seems > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very > > > important: a > > > >>>>>>> theory > > > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance > > especially > > > seems > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe it?s > > > not just > > > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but > apparently a > > > gap > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that > > this > > > very > > > >>>>>>> gap > > > >>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this > since > > > Vera > > > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, > > took > > > me > > > >>>>>>> under > > > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if > > > cognitive > > > >>>>>>>>> grammar > > > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record on > > > this, > > > >>>>> but > > > >>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you > > have > > > said > > > >>>>>>>>> about > > > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are > > > problems with > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has written > > > about the > > > >>>>>>>>> lack > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive > > > psychology > > > >>>>> (e.g. > > > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for > > > Ruqaiya that > > > >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince > me. I > > > don?t > > > >>>>>>> mean > > > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive > > > grammar > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse > > ?style?. > > > It > > > >>>>>>> brings > > > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > > > >>>>> festschrift, > > > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for > > > Ruqaiya, > > > >>>>>>> Henry. > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be > somebody > > > whose > > > >>>>>>> main > > > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more > > than > > > ten > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the > > > patronizing to > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually made > > the > > > stuff > > > >>>>>>>>> of a > > > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled by > > all > > > the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a Festschrift--but > it > > > will > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at > > > Macquarie > > > >>>>>>> (e.g. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any > kind. > > > So I > > > >>>>>>> think > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I always > > > do--just > > > >>>>>>>>>> start > > > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who can > > > command > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something > with > > > it. > > > >>>>> You > > > >>>>>>>>>> did > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was why I > > > posted > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> link > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious > entry > > > point > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>> most > > > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good Festscrhift, > > > should > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less > > > interesting > > > >>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>>> you > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. > The > > > work > > > >>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>>> fairy > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really just > an > > > >>>>> instance > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that > Ruqaiyah > > > was > > > >>>>>>>>> working > > > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of "OCER" > > > >>>>>>>>> (orientation, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which essentially > > > reduces > > > >>>>>>> all > > > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I suggested > > Dr. > > > >>>>>>> Lukin's > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how to > > read > > > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time > > very > > > >>>>>>> charming > > > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires > > while > > > you > > > >>>>>>> were > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for > breath > > > you > > > >>>>> were > > > >>>>>>>>>> going > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe > > > singe your > > > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat awkward > > > public > > > >>>>>>>>>> speaker: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do > SFL > > > she > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much > of > > > the > > > >>>>> whole > > > >>>>>>>>>> was > > > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk about > > > would > > > >>>>> make > > > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one > of > > > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's > > > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she comes > > to > > > the > > > >>>>>>> end, > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>> then... > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never > > really > > > >>>>>>>>> stopped; > > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't bother > > to > > > >>>>>>>>> practice. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > > > hshonerd@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> David, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for an > > > article > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes > > > straight to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second link > > > seems to > > > >>>>>>> be > > > >>>>>>>>>> an > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? I > > > don?t see > > > >>>>>>>>> yet > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m not > > > sure I > > > >>>>> can > > > >>>>>>>>>> help > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell > me > > > how my > > > >>>>>>>>>> response > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > > > >>>>> festschrift? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > > > >>>>>>> commemorative > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative special > > > issue, > > > >>>>>>>>> along > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I can. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to > > read > > > and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky > > more > > > or > > > >>>>> less > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal art. > So > > > >>>>> another > > > >>>>>>>>>> thing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy > > > tales; by > > > >>>>>>> far > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on > fables. > > > >>>>> > > > > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the original, > > > there's > > > >>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>> good > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of > > > generalized text > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole < > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for > > such a > > > >>>>>>>>>> production. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the self > > is > > > not > > > >>>>>>>>>> located > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there is > a > > > way. > > > >>>>> Very > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total absence > > of > > > will > > > >>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > > > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also by > > how > > > >>>>> little > > > >>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by > > reading > > > >>>>> more. > > > >>>>>>>>> Not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to > > Vygotsky: > > > >>>>>>>>> Grammar! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed > to > > > >>>>> systemic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so explicitly > > to > > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there > is, > > > as > > > >>>>> Mike > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like to > > see > > > that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia > > > article on > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > > > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met > who > > > set out > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her insight > > > was that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably > > going > > > to > > > >>>>>>> focus > > > >>>>>>>>>> too > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical > > > derivations. > > > >>>>> As > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when > > > children's > > > >>>>> word > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy > to > > > tell > > > >>>>> when > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany > next > > > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > > > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work > and > > > may > > > >>>>> even > > > >>>>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid > > > noughties. > > > >>>>> She > > > >>>>>>>>>> was a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, Halliday, > > > >>>>> Bernstein > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya > > > passed away > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, > > > brought on > > > >>>>> by > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so > weakened > > > her > > > >>>>> body. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, and > > for > > > some > > > >>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to reassure > > > you that > > > >>>>>>> he > > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and > > > determined as > > > >>>>>>> you > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> know > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney next > > > week. > > > >>>>> The > > > >>>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be > > > posted when > > > >>>>>>>>> they > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger > scholarly > > > event > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving > forward, > > > later > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly contribution, > an > > > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable > > > which > > > >>>>> makes > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you > see > > > >>>>>>> something > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs > Through > > > it* > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > > > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 30 22:55:46 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:55:46 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan In-Reply-To: References: <5F8E55CF-A680-4867-B23B-202FE0A827ED@gmail.com> <16E25ADD-3982-4CC2-AAD9-44C456C4A576@gmail.com> <60F2BB58-BE9B-4295-BE12-5A7A64E43E40@gmail.com> Message-ID: David, This is helpful for me and my very substantial naivete about Hassan and Bernstein. I'm going to have to do some tracking down of these sources (you wouldn't by any chance have PDF's that you could share with me offline?), but I fear that I'm still not understanding the demonstratives that you offered. In the 10, 11, 12 example that you provided from Hasan, what is the point with regard to elaborated or restricted? (or whatever dimension she sees as relevant? or if no dimensions are relevant, then what would Hasan have to say about these three examples and what they have to say about anything? I'm still a little lost. I warned you that I'm slow!). Also, I thought I might summarize my concern with an example, also from the south side of Chicago - but the other south side - the white one. (and yes, I'm raising some questions about the relevant community we would assign to the code - I suspect that the south side Chicago codes that you speak of is probably closer to the code spoken in Mississippi than to the south side Chicago code described below). http://www.amazon.com/Place-Stand-Persuasion-Working-Class-Sociolinguistics/dp/0195140389 In a wonderful ethnography of a white working class bar on the South Side of Chicago conducted while she was working as a bartender, Julie Lindquist takes up, among other things, the Marxian notion that working class people don't think counterfactually (and yes, I'm entirely sincere when I say that this is a wonderful ethnography - fantastically thick description with long chunks of transcripts of actual conversations at the bar - very nicely done). In her book, she presents a number of examples of arguments that broke out in the bar in which people appear to refuse to think counterfactually. Unfortunately, in the material included in the book, she misses an example in which the patrons do, in fact, employ counterfactuals. So that is caution #1 when doing this kind of work, there is a tendency to miss examples that don't conform to one's theory. This can of course happen in many different ways and typically for non-nefarious reasons. But there is another, perhaps more serious, concern here. It may, in fact, be the case that you do see fewer counterfactuals in working class bars. Where this gets troubling is when this gets extended to the consciousness of "those" people. People on the political left and right both have a kind of fascination with this kind of thinking. People on the left see it as evidence of the malicious effects of capitalism - working class people have a degraded consciousness and that is why they are working class (i.e., because of their degraded consciousness, they can't realize the nature of their oppression and/or how to rise up against their oppressor, or, most commonly, they don't vote in their interests - with the Democratic party). People on the right see it as evidence that capitalist meritocracy works - working class people have a degraded consciousness and that is why they are working class. And perhaps it is telling that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx "saw" in the working class a degraded and almost sub-human consciousness. Of course, it is likely that Marx got much of this insight from Adam Smith who pointed out that this was a real problem of capitalism and the reason why capitalist nations need universal education (and despite the crassness of his descriptions of working class people, Smith truly believed that the "ignorance" and "stupidity" of the person working in the pin factory was the result of the nature of the work itself, not due to any inherent properties of the working man himself - so his position was actually much closer to Marx's position than to the Republican position today). My concern, then, is that this isn't so much a matter as the consciousness of a people as it is the practical stuff of the interactions that are to be had there. If you are at all familiar with the feeling of a white working class bar on the south side of Chicago, then you will appreciate the fact that that there are things that one does and there are things that one doesn't do when in such a place. One thing that one (generally) doesn't do is to speak "like an academic". You're likely to get your ass kicked if you talk that way. So then you, as a speaker in a working class bar, have to choose (David, I like your idea of "volitional", but would imagine different timescales of volitionalality, e.g., having multiple repertoires and being able to choose among them in the moment vs. choosing to learn or take on a different repertoire over a longer course of time). So, in the bar, do you choose to risk appearing like an effete impudent intellectual snob (David, I assume you recognize these words, and yes, these white working class folks are largely Republican - Reagan-ites), or do you take up the pose of the self-respecting white working class man who "tells it like it is" (not how it "might be"!)? The point is simply to beware of putting too much about the way people speak into the people themselves. It is more often the case that the contexts that people habitually encounter call forth certain ways of speaking. But to say that these ways of speaking limit how they could possibly speak/think, that seems a bit problematic for me. And, without having read the pieces that you sent along David, the title of the book from which the Cloran piece is taken (Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness) leaves me very anxious about precisely this point. It seems a bit too much to argue that pedagogy can actually shape consciousness. But I may well be reading too much into the title. Any further insights here would be much appreciated. Best, greg p.s., David, perhaps you have been in this very situation? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:10 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Yes, I was trying to keep it short. > > The key text is: > > Hasan, R. (1973). Code, Register, and Social Dialect. In Bernstein, B. > (ed.) Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology > of Language. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. > > Also: > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1972). Towards a Sociological Semantics. In Collected > Works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 3, London: Continuum, pp. 323-354. > > The examples I gave were made up especially for you. I am not a native > speaker of South Chicago English, but I remember thinking that "be" > insertion is sometimes a sign of counteractuality (as in "They be sayin" as > opposed to "they said" or "they say"), and so a sign of the conditional. > That is, where North Chicago and Loop English will use "if" and then the > future tense to express conditionality ("If you get that dirty, I'll smack > you") South Chicago English uses the more direct form, the conjuntion > "and", and then "be" insertion to suggest the conditional ("Get that dirty > and I be hit yo up side yo face"). But I don't really know; this is one of > those situations where we need an authentic speaker and not just a genuine > one. > > Here are Hasan's examples (also made up). > > (10) If you climb up that wall you may hurt yourself. > (11) You climb up that wall and I'll take a stick to you. > (12) If you climb up that wall you may ruin your nice new shirt. (p. 69, > but that's in my Chinese copy). > > Ruqaiya's point is that (10) and (12) differ in meaning but the difference > doesn't cover the whole clause complex but only the result of the > condition, whereas in (10) and (11) it covers the whole complex, including > the way that the condition is worded: this suggests--but of course it > doesn't prove--a more general, more genetic causation, rather than a merely > functional one. > > I don't think any examples--Ruqaiya's or my own--are meant to be anything > more than demonstrative, Greg. In order to see real evidence, we need very > large data bases and some way of looking at significant wordings. This was > done by Ruqaiya's student: > > Cloran, C. (1999) Contexts for learning. In Christie, F. (Ed) Pedagogy and > the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes. London: > Continuum, pp. 31-65. > > She compares categories like "action", "commentary", "observation", > "reflection", "report", "account", "generalization", "plan", "prediction", > "conjecture" and "recount' (storytelling). The big differences came in > "generalization" (elaborated code +) and "action" (restricted code +), and > the differences were statistically highly significant (Mann Whitney test). > > David Kellogg > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > David, > > Thanks for this elaboration (!) of Hasan, Bernstein, and a bit of > Halliday. > > Very dense and lots for me to learn. I'm absorbing it as best I can... > > > > Two clarification that might help me in my understanding: > > > > 1. Are your a) and b) actual recorded examples of talk? I found the use > of > > the habitual be to feel a bit out of place (unless the point was that the > > parent was going to repeatedly (habitually) be hitting the child upside > > their face). > > > > 2. If these are actual examples of talk, could you help me make more > direct > > links between what Bernstein/Hasan have to say about these examples and > the > > examples themselves? I think I'm getting the point about code vs. dialect > > vs. register but I'm confused about the specific analysis you offer when > > you write: > > "Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the > orientation > > is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal > > solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated > > coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to > > individual motivation, and towards interdependence." > > > > There is a leap here (perhaps justified) between the examples as I read > > them and the claims about orientation and as a result I wasn't clear how > > these features were manifest in the examples. > > > > Sorry for being so restricted in my reading, and many thanks for your > > multiple elaborations! > > > > -greg > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Everybody: > > > > > > First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage. > > And > > > even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to > his > > > use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments > on > > > Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and > > > heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse > so > > > that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve > > > "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's > > > gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not > > only > > > an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have > > the > > > right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is > > called > > > "justice"). > > > > > > Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes, > > and > > > I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's > > > Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it > relevant. > > > But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction > > > between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the > distinction > > > between competence and performance. > > > > > > Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds: > > > > > > a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry. > > > b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face. > > > > > > The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the > > > semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the > > > "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly > > volitional: > > > you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also > > > choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the > > > inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is > > > voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed > raised > > > in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a > > > minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect > is a > > > guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user), > > and > > > I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language > > > user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional, > > > meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine > > > dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into > the > > > dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it > deliberately > > > as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful > > > (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you > could > > > have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect > > is > > > a distinction of the user, and not of the use. > > > > > > The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the > > > phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would > > > concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his > > > argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for > > > copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other > > factors > > > which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is > specified > > > while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now > > > rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the > > > consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although > > > unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a > > > threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete. > > > > > > But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who > > grew > > > up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it > > > immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of > > > Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft > > > (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society, > > > interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on > > what > > > you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your > > > ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding > > > orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective > rules > > > that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards > > > individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the > > > orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards > > > interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it > > sounds > > > and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated > > > coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike > > > register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is > > not > > > at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation > is a > > > pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic > > > variability, and it is related causally to class. > > > > > > Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and > > performance--in > > > fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of > > "communicative > > > competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something > > is > > > linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically > > > appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and > > > whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such > > dichotomies > > > are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not > > > available for marriage to material performances: we can never really > > know, > > > for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic, > > > psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying > competence > > is > > > there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly > > > transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the > performed. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > I ?m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to > whether > > > > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture: > > > > > ?...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a > property > > of > > > > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of > > > > code/style, speaker, and context.? > > > > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an > actual > > > > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would > > > like a > > > > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event. > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes > > > > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the > use > > > of a > > > > given code/style? > > > > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing > that > > > has > > > > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use. > > > > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that > > it > > > > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to > > the > > > > contrary? > > > > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of > > deployment > > > > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the > > speaker > > > > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context. > > > > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan? > > > > > David? > > > > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this > > should > > > > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to). > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama?s as well. > Apparently, > > > > he?s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not > good > > > > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn?t want to hear. I have been so > > > disappointed > > > > with what is happening with our political ?leadership? in this > > country, I > > > > didn?t want to believe the president?s eulogy was one more charade. > > Maybe > > > > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of > > > euphoria > > > > and I just didn?t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground > > where > > > > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with > > those > > > > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English > > Vernacular? > > > > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will > > always > > > > have a ?foreign accent? in it. I am wondering how the audience in > that > > > AME > > > > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the > ?black > > > > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama?s attempts at code shifting. > > > > >> > > > > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion > > of > > > > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red > > herring. > > > > >> > > > > >> With respect, > > > > >> Henry > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > > > > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in > > > > front of a black audience. This is a young man raised in a white > > middle > > > > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at > > > > reverend wright's church much, much later in life. His attempt to > > speak > > > to > > > > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic, > > semantic, > > > > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English > highlighted > > > by > > > > molefi Asante and others.... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II > > > > >>> > > > > >>>
-------- Original message --------
From: HENRY > > > SHONERD < > > > > hshonerd@gmail.com>
Date:06/29/2015 6:57 PM (GMT-05:00) > > > >
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > > >
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan
> > > > >>>
One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of > > > > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world. > > > Obama > > > > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech > community > > > of > > > > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin > > > Luther > > > > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he > same > > > > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to ?the > > > > American people?, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the > same. > > > > What?s different is not only construal, but context of Obama?s > > speaking. > > > > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and > where > > > > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I > think > > > > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of > meaning > > > for > > > > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is > > > > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The > > > > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many > > > decades > > > > back comes in here. But originally it was focused entirely on > lexicon. > > > And > > > > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are > > > > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If > > so, > > > > language wouldn?t change nor would second language learning be > > possible. > > > > More tenable is a ?weak? version of the LRE, which allows us to > > > understand > > > > Obama?s code and construal shifting. When I say ?we? I mean those of > us > > > who > > > > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I > > think > > > > that Vygotky?s conjecture that a person that doesn?t know his first > > > > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes > learning > > a > > > > second dialect, or even plays with ?coding orientation?, or any other > > > > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the > > > world. > > > > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language > variety > > > can > > > > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical > > continuum > > > > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax > > > (word > > > > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units larger than > > the > > > > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning > > can > > > > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but > > > > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of > > this, > > > > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And > > for > > > > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about > > > > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky?s life?s work as a social > > > > semiotician. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: ?Smart? > indeed. > > > > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was > > > > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is > > > credible > > > > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we?ve come a long way, > baby. > > > We > > > > elected Obama! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Henry > > > > >>> > > > > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn?t > > as > > > > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin?s quote from Labov is the > > way > > > > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class. > > > > Ruqaiya was > > > > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE > > > (that > > > > is, > > > > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane > > when > > > > you > > > > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving > > > > imperatives, > > > > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess > > using > > > > polar > > > > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could > > also > > > > vary > > > > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing > you > > > > hear > > > > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from > > > America > > > > to > > > > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white > > > > one). But > > > > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really > > > provided > > > > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters > of > > > > phonology > > > > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and > > > > difference in > > > > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not > simply > > > > dialects. > > > > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to > see > > > > today, > > > > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and > > you > > > > can > > > > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you > can > > > to > > > > offer > > > > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more > > > > difficult to > > > > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and > > black > > > > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will > > see > > > > that > > > > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular > > English > > > > (AAVE, > > > > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama > > > > doesn't > > > > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church: > he > > > > also > > > > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely > > > > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At > > one > > > > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for, > but > > > God > > > > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it > > clear > > > > that > > > > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously > > > gunned > > > > down > > > > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race > and > > > > tried to > > > > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace > > unasked > > > > for but > > > > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other > > > > audience, the > > > > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace > > of > > > > irony > > > > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although > there > > is > > > > some > > > > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice, > > demonstrating > > > > that > > > > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the > user). > > > > This lack > > > > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of > > > "grace", > > > > has > > > > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what > Ruqaiya > > > > would > > > > >>>> call coding orientation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us > to > > > see > > > > irony > > > > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative > language, > > > > and to > > > > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop" > > > > which is > > > > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a > > > > noun--"development"--so > > > > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed > > in > > > > other > > > > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big > break" > > > into > > > > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the > mother > > > > tongue > > > > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous > speech") > > > > and the > > > > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In > fact, > > > > it's an > > > > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to > > talk > > > > about > > > > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical > > > > metaphors, > > > > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that > are > > > > required > > > > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle > > > class > > > > jobs). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the > > > argument > > > > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and > > > even > > > > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding > > > > orientation" to > > > > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in > my > > > > original > > > > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein > NEVER > > > > would > > > > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart > > > enough > > > > to > > > > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a > big > > > > effect > > > > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important > > part > > > > of > > > > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this > he > > > was > > > > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed > > > that > > > > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as > Chomsky > > > was > > > > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and > not > > at > > > > all > > > > >>>> linked to grammar). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was > BERNSTEIN > > > who > > > > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN > > who > > > > argued > > > > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were > > > related > > > > to > > > > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which > > > > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully > > > > determined by > > > > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common > > > > underlying > > > > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding > orientations, > > > only > > > > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that > > > some > > > > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was > that > > > > some were > > > > >>>> better dressed. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer < > > > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi David, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City: > > > > Studies in > > > > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of > > > > code-switching? And > > > > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup' > > > > directed > > > > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Martin > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg < > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning > > > > another > > > > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem > > which > > > > is > > > > >>>>> ever > > > > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula > > > > Towsey's and > > > > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's > > Concepts: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409 > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think > > Like > > > > >>>>> Children, > > > > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned > with > > > > what > > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code > > > > orientation" in > > > > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads > her > > > > >>>>> "exotropic > > > > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in > > > > which she > > > > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict > with > > > > Labov, > > > > >>>>> who > > > > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov, > > > there > > > > was > > > > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic > > > categories > > > > were > > > > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were > > somehow > > > > shaped > > > > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying > that > > > > some > > > > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic > > categories > > > > are > > > > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts" > > > > cannot be > > > > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that > has > > > to > > > > be > > > > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in > > laboratories > > > > and > > > > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class > societies > > > > produce > > > > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to > > > their > > > > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code > > > > orientations". > > > > >>>>> Some > > > > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are > > not. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > > > hshonerd@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Good on Carol?s challenge and David?s response. But I would I > > > take > > > > the > > > > >>>>>>> term ?conventional? to mean ?cultural? and much preferable to > > > > >>>>> ?arbitrary? > > > > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I > think > > > > this is > > > > >>>>> an > > > > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and > > > Saussure > > > > to > > > > >>>>> be a > > > > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the > CHAT. > > > > >>>>>>> Henry > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a > > number > > > of > > > > >>>>> ways. > > > > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the > rationalist, > > > > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and > > > society > > > > that > > > > >>>>>>> had > > > > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre > > and > > > > was > > > > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict > of > > > > Nantes > > > > >>>>> (I > > > > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few > > months > > > > ago > > > > >>>>> when > > > > >>>>>>> I > > > > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And > linguistically, > > > the > > > > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an > > > > extension > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages > (e.g. > > > > >>>>> concepts, > > > > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same. > > > > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g. > > > > nouns/verbs, > > > > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same. > > > > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't > > any > > > > >>>>>>> principled > > > > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what > some > > > > languages > > > > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another > language > > > by a > > > > >>>>> whole > > > > >>>>>>>> wording. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the > > basic > > > > model > > > > >>>>> we > > > > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or > > even > > > > >>>>> logical > > > > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much > > > more > > > > like > > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development. > That > > > is, > > > > words > > > > >>>>>>> are > > > > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call > vocabulary > > is > > > > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause, > > > > relating > > > > >>>>> them > > > > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to > > > > non-proportional > > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather > > > than > > > > >>>>>>> universal > > > > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means > > something > > > > >>>>>>> different > > > > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like > > plural > > > > "s" > > > > >>>>>>> always > > > > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is > > > > essentially a > > > > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating > them > > > to > > > > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to > > > > >>>>> proportional > > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car > > > > horns). > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words, > > > > >>>>> local/general > > > > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can > > > guess > > > > that > > > > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but > > > > grammar > > > > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of > > > > course, > > > > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day, > > but > > > > when > > > > >>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution > that > > > > will > > > > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that > you > > > > have > > > > >>>>>>> already > > > > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable > > > > singular > > > > >>>>>>> noun > > > > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses, > > > > grammatical > > > > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really > > > > means: it > > > > >>>>>>> means > > > > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means > for > > > > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely > > the > > > > area > > > > >>>>>>> which > > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the > > > > development > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of > > > > wordings. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew > > > > personally > > > > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that > > he > > > > and > > > > >>>>> Luria > > > > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is > > full > > > of > > > > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser > known > > > > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these > > > > grammars that > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape, > and > > > > then it > > > > >>>>>>> was > > > > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the > > > Prague > > > > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and > Hasan. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was > > > > thinking of a > > > > >>>>>>>> series of discussions we had in Guangzhou about Saussure. > She > > > > was an > > > > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident > > > > detractor. > > > > >>>>> In > > > > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was > > > getting > > > > at: > > > > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost > > purely > > > > >>>>>>> structural > > > > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But > > > > Saussure > > > > >>>>> was > > > > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid > > > > >>>>> impermeable > > > > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for > Saussure's > > > > notion of > > > > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations > we > > > > find > > > > >>>>>>> between > > > > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most > > exercised > > > > me at > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing > > > more > > > > than > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal > grammarians > > > > were able > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their > > absolute > > > > force. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he > > > > explicitly > > > > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of > > Thinking > > > > and > > > > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really > > > talking > > > > >>>>> about > > > > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in > > > HDHMF). > > > > In > > > > >>>>> some > > > > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again, > > > Chapter > > > > One > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been > > cut > > > > from > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a > Saussurean > > > one > > > > >>>>> (e.g. > > > > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow"). > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's > basic > > > > model of > > > > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the > > > > associative > > > > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he > > was > > > > >>>>> working > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the > > same > > > > time > > > > >>>>>>> much > > > > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place. > Port-Royal > > > > would > > > > >>>>> have > > > > >>>>>>>> approved. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a) > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald < > > > > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments > over > > > the > > > > past > > > > >>>>> 24 > > > > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a > century > > > > ago, in > > > > >>>>>>> fact > > > > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar. I long ago forgave > > > > Vygotsky > > > > >>>>> for > > > > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a > > > > linguist, > > > > >>>>> that > > > > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have > had a > > > > theory > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>> use. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never > know - > > > but > > > > >>>>>>> knowing > > > > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten > > > > around to > > > > >>>>>>> it, > > > > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both Ruqaiya > > and > > > > LSV to > > > > >>>>>>>>> develop one. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD < > hshonerd@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure > > you > > > > are > > > > >>>>>>> right, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding > > > > Ruqaiya?s > > > > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand, > > > > Ruqaiya > > > > >>>>>>> seems > > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very > > > > important: a > > > > >>>>>>> theory > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance > > > especially > > > > seems > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe > it?s > > > > not just > > > > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but > > apparently a > > > > gap > > > > >>>>> that > > > > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn?t be too far off the mark that > > > this > > > > very > > > > >>>>>>> gap > > > > >>>>>>>>> is > > > > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this > > since > > > > Vera > > > > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian, > > > took > > > > me > > > > >>>>>>> under > > > > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if > > > > cognitive > > > > >>>>>>>>> grammar > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record > on > > > > this, > > > > >>>>> but > > > > >>>>>>> I > > > > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you > > > have > > > > said > > > > >>>>>>>>> about > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are > > > > problems with > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has > written > > > > about the > > > > >>>>>>>>> lack > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive > > > > psychology > > > > >>>>> (e.g. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch). > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for > > > > Ruqaiya that > > > > >>>>>>>>>> includes the ?correction? of Vygotsky will help convince > > me. I > > > > don?t > > > > >>>>>>> mean > > > > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive > > > > grammar > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David?s description of Ruqaiya?s discourse > > > ?style?. > > > > It > > > > >>>>>>> brings > > > > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the > > > > >>>>> festschrift, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg < > > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for > > > > Ruqaiya, > > > > >>>>>>> Henry. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be > > somebody > > > > whose > > > > >>>>>>> main > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more > > > than > > > > ten > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the > > > > patronizing to > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually > made > > > the > > > > stuff > > > > >>>>>>>>> of a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled > by > > > all > > > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a > Festschrift--but > > it > > > > will > > > > >>>>> be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at > > > > Macquarie > > > > >>>>>>> (e.g. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any > > kind. > > > > So I > > > > >>>>>>> think > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I > always > > > > do--just > > > > >>>>>>>>>> start > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who > can > > > > command > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something > > with > > > > it. > > > > >>>>> You > > > > >>>>>>>>>> did > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was > why I > > > > posted > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> link > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious > > entry > > > > point > > > > >>>>> for > > > > >>>>>>>>>> most > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good > Festscrhift, > > > > should > > > > >>>>> be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less > > > > interesting > > > > >>>>> than > > > > >>>>>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales. > > The > > > > work > > > > >>>>> on > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fairy > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really > just > > an > > > > >>>>> instance > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that > > Ruqaiyah > > > > was > > > > >>>>>>>>> working > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of > "OCER" > > > > >>>>>>>>> (orientation, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which > essentially > > > > reduces > > > > >>>>>>> all > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I > suggested > > > Dr. > > > > >>>>>>> Lukin's > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how > to > > > read > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time > > > very > > > > >>>>>>> charming > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires > > > while > > > > you > > > > >>>>>>> were > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for > > breath > > > > you > > > > >>>>> were > > > > >>>>>>>>>> going > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe > > > > singe your > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat > awkward > > > > public > > > > >>>>>>>>>> speaker: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do > > SFL > > > > she > > > > >>>>> was > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much > > of > > > > the > > > > >>>>> whole > > > > >>>>>>>>>> was > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk > about > > > > would > > > > >>>>> make > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one > > of > > > > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she > comes > > > to > > > > the > > > > >>>>>>> end, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> then... > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never > > > really > > > > >>>>>>>>> stopped; > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't > bother > > > to > > > > >>>>>>>>> practice. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD < > > > > hshonerd@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> David, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for > an > > > > article > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein that goes > > > > straight to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya?s ?correction? of Vygotsky, right? The second > link > > > > seems to > > > > >>>>>>> be > > > > >>>>>>>>>> an > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right? > I > > > > don?t see > > > > >>>>>>>>> yet > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I?m > not > > > > sure I > > > > >>>>> can > > > > >>>>>>>>>> help > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let?s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell > > me > > > > how my > > > > >>>>>>>>>> response > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative > > > > >>>>> festschrift? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg < > > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a > > > > >>>>>>> commemorative > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative > special > > > > issue, > > > > >>>>>>>>> along > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I > can. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to > > > read > > > > and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky > > > more > > > > or > > > > >>>>> less > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal > art. > > So > > > > >>>>> another > > > > >>>>>>>>>> thing > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy > > > > tales; by > > > > >>>>>>> far > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on > > fables. > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the > original, > > > > there's > > > > >>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>>>> good > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of > > > > generalized text > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole < > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for > > > such a > > > > >>>>>>>>>> production. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the > self > > > is > > > > not > > > > >>>>>>>>>> located > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there > is > > a > > > > way. > > > > >>>>> Very > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total > absence > > > of > > > > will > > > > >>>>> as > > > > >>>>>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD < > > > > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya?s passing by also > by > > > how > > > > >>>>> little > > > > >>>>>>> I > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya?s work. I hope to correct that now by > > > reading > > > > >>>>> more. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Not > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to > > > Vygotsky: > > > > >>>>>>>>> Grammar! > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed > > to > > > > >>>>> systemic > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so > explicitly > > > to > > > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there > > is, > > > > as > > > > >>>>> Mike > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like > to > > > see > > > > that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?foregrounded? (a term straight out of the Wikipedia > > > > article on > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg < > > > > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met > > who > > > > set out > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her > insight > > > > was that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably > > > going > > > > to > > > > >>>>>>> focus > > > > >>>>>>>>>> too > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical > > > > derivations. > > > > >>>>> As > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when > > > > children's > > > > >>>>> word > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy > > to > > > > tell > > > > >>>>> when > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany > > next > > > > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell < > > > > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work > > and > > > > may > > > > >>>>> even > > > > >>>>>>>>>> have > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid > > > > noughties. > > > > >>>>> She > > > > >>>>>>>>>> was a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky, > Halliday, > > > > >>>>> Bernstein > > > > >>>>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya > > > > passed away > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon. She suffered heart failure, > > > > brought on > > > > >>>>> by > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so > > weakened > > > > her > > > > >>>>> body. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment, > and > > > for > > > > some > > > > >>>>>>>>> time > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to > reassure > > > > you that > > > > >>>>>>> he > > > > >>>>>>>>>> is > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and > > > > determined as > > > > >>>>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> know > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney > next > > > > week. > > > > >>>>> The > > > > >>>>>>>>>> time > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be > > > > posted when > > > > >>>>>>>>> they > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available. There will also be a much larger > > scholarly > > > > event > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving > > forward, > > > > later > > > > >>>>> in > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly > contribution, > > an > > > > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something > noticeable > > > > which > > > > >>>>> makes > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you > > see > > > > >>>>>>> something > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs > > Through > > > > it* > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin) > > > > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist > > > > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor > > > > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From smago@uga.edu Tue Jun 30 14:22:54 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:22:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE Winter Conference Call for Proposals is attached Message-ID: http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/ I encourage one and all to take a look at this call and go to the website for all past issues and other features. Best,Peter [cid:image001.jpg@01D0B357.DC8FC280] -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28886 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/a10a7ce7/attachment-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JoLLE@UGA 2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 749125 bytes Desc: JoLLE@UGA 2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/a10a7ce7/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.htm Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150630/a10a7ce7/attachment-0001.pl