From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sat Dec 1 07:51:32 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:51:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> Message-ID: [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. Cheers, -greg On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Right on, James! > > On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free > style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it > comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. > > James > > HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? > >> James, >> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so >> I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, >> in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on >> how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this >> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >> Henry >> >> >> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >> >> >> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >> >> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother >> would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker >> hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off >> in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in >> China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a >> year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! >> >> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >> >> James >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>> haircuts images >>> . >>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Henry. >>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>> >>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>> >>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting >>>> things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, >>>> whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese >>>> language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to >>>> become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. >>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage >>>> as an *a priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds >>>> me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to >>>> CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>> >>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories >>>> are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin >>>> ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these >>>> categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here >>>> discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a >>>> patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall >>>> Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external >>>> and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the >>>> Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>> pertinent here. >>>>> >>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>> >>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can >>>>> be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors >>>>> are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>> >>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>> etc! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>> >>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, >>>>>> this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an >>>>>> audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as >>>>>> I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. >>>>>> There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat >>>>>> a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed >>>>>>> internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have >>>>>>> long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, >>>>>>> or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions >>>>>>> of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are >>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I have >>>>>>>> an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National Anthems >>>>>>>> where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed only in >>>>>>>> international events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language >>>>>>>> teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have separate >>>>>>>> words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to move - until >>>>>>>> western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the relationship >>>>>>>> between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens >>>>>>>> with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from >>>>>>>> some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that >>>>>>>> sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - >>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and music >>>>>>>> very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is linked >>>>>>>> to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this rhythmically >>>>>>>> entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s verbal/gestural art. >>>>>>>> Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera John-Steiner and Holbrook >>>>>>>> Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a co-construction ?at the >>>>>>>> speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or just listening to, this >>>>>>>> call and response between smart people. And disheartening and destructive >>>>>>>> when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion >>>>>>>> of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am currently >>>>>>>> on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at the end, >>>>>>>> which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of Merlin >>>>>>>> Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before speech >>>>>>>> was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is always >>>>>>>> present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into >>>>>>>> being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made >>>>>>>> sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with >>>>>>>> they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial >>>>>>>> expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present >>>>>>>> entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the >>>>>>>> conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the >>>>>>>> vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice >>>>>>>> of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary >>>>>>>> niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually >>>>>>>> became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions >>>>>>>> and hand movements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must >>>>>>>> have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something >>>>>>>> found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of >>>>>>>> rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, >>>>>>>> tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of >>>>>>>> articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181201/c4f68d0c/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Sat Dec 1 13:04:08 2018 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:04:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <42661aa7-c445-cdc8-a467-712db9c867df@marxists.org> <77297a2e-d6eb-ff4f-6c9f-6ce6d5545626@marxists.org> <2A3DC513-DD42-40FF-B65B-B446891DB8EB@gmail.com> <425ccea5-76ab-ebeb-4b95-ba197730c41b@ariadne.org.uk> <136A8BCDB24BB844A570A40E6ADF5DA80129906B7D@Elpis.ds.WITS.AC.ZA> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <609FF6A0-599C-4EAB-9C70-5E2E1C1D9BE1@gmail.com> Greg, Most on chat probably know my own obsession with language and linguistics, so no surprise I find your suggestion to dig again into Peirce worthwhile. Frankly, even though I think of myself (and present myself) as somewhat of a linguist, I have found Peirce difficult. Are there any primers on the tripartite iconic/indexical/symbolic sign system Peirce developed? Have you written anything along those lines? We have discussed Peirce before on the chat, but personally I would like more. I worry, like Helena and you, about any discussion becoming an orphan. But language defines human evolution and the human condition as much as anything. One could argue the same about neuroscience, something I know very little about. What more could I learn about that on this chat without getting in over my head? I don?t know, but how much more effectively can I/we act in the world if I/we push the envelope? What lessons do we get from Vygotsky on pushing the envelope? Henry > On Dec 1, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). > > The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. > > Cheers, > -greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > Right on, James! > >> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > wrote: >> >> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >> >> James >> >> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >> James, >> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >> Henry >> >> >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>> >>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! >>> >>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts images . One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Henry. >>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an a priori process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>> James, >>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton ) who argued that ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All that jazz. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, etc! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>>> Sent: 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>> >>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might find interest here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed only in international events. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as just an ?activity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - YouTube >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of language in the senses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only cooperation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came into being, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human development. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it for speech. Clearly there was rudimentary language before speech was humanly possible. In development, a behaviour is always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181201/c31f8c06/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Dec 1 16:25:56 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 11:25:56 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very relevant answers. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for > precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the > proliferation of technical languages in different fields > and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings > of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to > the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much > interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology > (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - > a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the > following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all > because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this > is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to > learning an entirely new language for talking about > language!).] > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to > (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language > while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction > between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology > of language tends to assume that spoken language is > (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. > Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers > us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical > and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out > of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia > (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his > project). > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the > first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of > language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather > substantial career off of this simple point, first > elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and > since then in numerous other works. Many others working in > linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years > expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and > iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of > "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic > anthropologists have considered the processes by which > sign-functions can shift from one function to another - > e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic > (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - > from symbolic or iconic to indexical?(see Webb Keane's and > Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic > features of sign-functioning such as the realization of > qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special > issue in Anthro theory). > > The relevance of all this for the present list serve is > that the processes being described by these linguistic > anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human > psychological functioning and yet most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't > have much interest in talking about such things as > psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul > Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self > - although beware that his writing is just as dense as > Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a > particularly productive intersection for development. > > Cheers, > -greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > Right on, James! > >> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >> > >> wrote: >> >> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be >> exploratory and free style, allowing for the >> coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch >> the code. >> >> James >> >> HENRY SHONERD > > ? 2018?11?29??? >> 18:58??? >> >> James, >> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t >> want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring >> you or others with all the connections I find. >> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just >> keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail >> hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept >> in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >> communication present in many species. Hence, the >> importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of >> language with evolutionary results in human >> language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >> business of quotes in the subject line now taking >> place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as >> an issue of gesture. Language, written language >> in this case, is limited in its ability to >> provide nuance. Writing without quotes >> ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources familar >> in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes >> were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at >> Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language >> where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) >> get it said before losing the thread of thinking >> and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is >> an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with >> temporal constraints that belie the idea that a >> single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always >> dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in >> discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >> Henry >> >> >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for this?subject >>> line! >>> >>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily >>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>> have?because he has much thicker hair than most >>> boys. Unfortunately?last year the boy had >>> a?one-day?show off in?the classroom?and >>> was?ticked off by?the school?authority (in >>> China).?However,?my brother has?managed to >>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year during?the >>> boy's?long school holiday in winter and summer! >>> >>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are >>> predictable due to participants' intersubjective >>> awareness of the subject. Yet,?the nuances of >>> conversation (just like each individual's >>> ducktail unique?to himself)?are unpredictable >>> because of the waywardness of?our mind. What's >>> more, such?nuances?create the fluidity of >>> conversation which makes it?difficult (or >>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what comes next - >>> this is perhaps the whole point that >>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed out?earlier. >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Back at you, James. The images of the >>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style >>> popularin the late 50s when I was in high >>> school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts >>> images >>> . >>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis >>> Presley, an alpha male high school boys >>> sought to emulate. Note that some of the >>> photos are of women, interesting in light of >>> issues of gender fluidity these days. I >>> don?t remember when women started taking on >>> the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis >>> Presley, this post counts as relevant to the >>> subject line! Ha! >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Henry. >>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you >>>> might like to see: >>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD >>> > ? >>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>> >>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and >>>> providing it is a move on this subject >>>> line that instantiates nicely Gee?s >>>> conception of discourse. Thanks for >>>> your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek >>>>> Bickerton. One of the interesting >>>>> things is his conception of >>>>> displacement as the hallmark of >>>>> language, whether iconic, indexical or >>>>> symbolic. In the case of Chinese >>>>> language, the sounds are >>>>> decontextualised or sublimated over >>>>> time to become something more >>>>> integrated into the words themselves >>>>> as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's >>>>> ideas are suggestive of the study of >>>>> protolanguage as an /a priori >>>>> /process, involving scrupulous >>>>> deduction. This reminds me of methods >>>>> used in diachronic linguistics, which >>>>> I felt are relevant to CHAT just as >>>>> much as those used in synchronic >>>>> linguistics. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>> "intramental", I can see your point. >>>>> In fact I don't?take Vygotsky's >>>>> "interpsychological" and >>>>> "intrapsychological" categories?to >>>>> be?dichotomies or binary opposites. >>>>> Whenever it comes to their >>>>> relationship, I tend to have a >>>>> post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>> my mind, particularly related to a >>>>> Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>> ideas (i.e.any idea is not entirely >>>>> distinct from other ideas in terms of >>>>> the "thing itself"; rather, it entails >>>>> a supplement of the other idea which >>>>> is?already embedded in the self). >>>>> Vygotsky's two categoriesare >>>>> relational (dialectical); they are >>>>> somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks >>>>> (see attached image). I also like to >>>>> think that each of these categories is >>>>> both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>> discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork >>>>> of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff >>>>> talking about there being no boundary >>>>> between the external and the internal >>>>> or the boundary being blurred (during >>>>> her seminar?in?the Graduate School of >>>>> Education at Bristol in 2001 while?I >>>>> was?doing my PhD). >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY >>>>> SHONERD >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton >>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>> who argued that ?formal syntax? >>>>> developed from stringing together >>>>> turns in verbal interaction. The >>>>> wiki on Bickerton I have linked is >>>>> short and raises issues discussed >>>>> in this subject line and in the >>>>> subject line on Corballis. >>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the >>>>> circularity of discourse and the >>>>> development of discourse >>>>> competence. Usage-based grammar. >>>>> Bickerton?s idea that complex >>>>> grammar developed out of the >>>>> pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>> interesting. Do I see a >>>>> chicken/egg problem that for >>>>> Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms >>>>> of semiotic mediation is better >>>>> understood by examining the types >>>>> of intermental processes?? I don?t >>>>> know. Could one say that inner >>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning >>>>> discourse into grammar? Bickerton >>>>> claimed a strong biological >>>>> component to human language, >>>>> though I don?t remember if he was >>>>> a Chomskian. I hope this is >>>>> coherent thinking in the context >>>>> of our conversation. All that jazz. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - >>>>>> intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity >>>>>> transcends "outlines"?or perhaps >>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and >>>>>> "unpredictability" of a >>>>>> conversation (as in Bateson's >>>>>> metalogue) into what Rommetveit >>>>>> termed?the "draft of a contract". >>>>>> This is because shared >>>>>> understanding?makes explicit and >>>>>> external what would otherwise >>>>>> remain implicit and internal. >>>>>> Rommetveit argues that?private >>>>>> worlds can only be transcended up >>>>>> to a certain level and >>>>>> interlocutors need to agree >>>>>> upon?the?draft of a contract with >>>>>> which the communication can be >>>>>> initiated. In the spirit of >>>>>> Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" >>>>>> and "social-cognitive" approach >>>>>> to human communication - and >>>>>> especially to the problem of >>>>>> linguistic mediation and >>>>>> regulation in interpsychological >>>>>> functioning, with reference to >>>>>> semantics, syntactics and >>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>> the?intramental forms of semiotic >>>>>> mediation?is better understood?by >>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>> intermental processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think?these intermental >>>>>> processes (just?like intramental >>>>>> ones) can be boiled down or >>>>>> distilled?to signs and symbols >>>>>> with which interlocutors are in >>>>>> harmony during?a conversation or >>>>>> any other joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>> >>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> / >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, >>>>>> Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry's remarks about no >>>>>> directors and symphonic >>>>>> potential?of >>>>>> conversation?reminded me?of >>>>>> G.?Bateson's metalogue "why >>>>>> do things have outlines" >>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, it >>>>>> raises the question of units >>>>>> and elements, of how a song, >>>>>> a dance,?a poem, a >>>>>> conversation, to make sense, >>>>>> they must have a recognizable >>>>>> outline, even in >>>>>> improvisation; they must be >>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. >>>>>> That makes them >>>>>> "predictable".?And yet, when >>>>>> you are immersed in a >>>>>> conversation, the fact that >>>>>> you can never?exactly?predict >>>>>> what comes next is the whole >>>>>> point that?keep us?talking, >>>>>> dancing, drawing, etc! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* >>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>> language and music >>>>>> I?d like to add to the call >>>>>> and response conversation >>>>>> that discourse, this >>>>>> conversation itself, is >>>>>> staged. There are performers >>>>>> and and an audience made up >>>>>> partly of performers >>>>>> themselves. How many are >>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? >>>>>> This conversation has no >>>>>> director, but there are >>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic >>>>>> potential. And even gestural >>>>>> potential, making the chat a >>>>>> dance. All on line.:) >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, >>>>>>> mike cole >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For many years I used the >>>>>>> work of Ellen Dissenyake to >>>>>>> teach comm classes about >>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>> She is quite unusual in ways >>>>>>> that might find interest here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 >>>>>>> PM James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In semiotic terms, >>>>>>> whatever each of the >>>>>>> participants has >>>>>>> constructed internally >>>>>>> is the signified, i.e. >>>>>>> his or her understanding >>>>>>> and interpretation. When >>>>>>> it is vocalised (spoken >>>>>>> out), it becomes the >>>>>>> signifier to the >>>>>>> listener. What's more, >>>>>>> when the participants >>>>>>> work together to compose >>>>>>> a story impromptu, each >>>>>>> of their signifiers >>>>>>> turns into a new >>>>>>> signified ? a shared, >>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>> understanding, woven >>>>>>> into the fabric of >>>>>>> meaning making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese >>>>>>> language, words for >>>>>>> singing and dancing have >>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>> inseparably. As I see >>>>>>> it,?they are >>>>>>> semiotically indexed to, >>>>>>> or adjusted to allow >>>>>>> for, the feelings, >>>>>>> emotions, actions and >>>>>>> interactions of a >>>>>>> consciousness who is >>>>>>> experiencing the singing >>>>>>> and dancing. Here are >>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????- singing and >>>>>>> dancing rapturously >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????- dancingvillage and >>>>>>> singing club >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????- citizens of >>>>>>> ancient Yan and Zhao >>>>>>> good at singing and >>>>>>> dancing, hence referring >>>>>>> to wonderful songs and >>>>>>> dances >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????- a church or >>>>>>> building set up for >>>>>>> singing and dancing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>> 19:08, Simangele >>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This conversation is >>>>>>> getting even more >>>>>>> interesting, not >>>>>>> that I have an >>>>>>> informed answer for >>>>>>> you Rob, I can only >>>>>>> think of the >>>>>>> National Anthems >>>>>>> where people stand >>>>>>> still when singing, >>>>>>> even then this is >>>>>>> observed only in >>>>>>> international events. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other occasions when >>>>>>> people are likely >>>>>>> not to move when >>>>>>> singing when there >>>>>>> is death and the >>>>>>> mood is sombre. >>>>>>> Otherwise singing >>>>>>> and rhythmic body >>>>>>> movement, called >>>>>>> dance are a norm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This then makes me >>>>>>> ?wonder what this >>>>>>> means in terms of >>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>> functioning, in the >>>>>>> light of Vygotsky?s >>>>>>> developmental stages >>>>>>> ? of language and >>>>>>> thought. Would the >>>>>>> body movement >>>>>>> constitute the >>>>>>> externalisation of >>>>>>> the thoughts >>>>>>> contained in the music? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helena ? the video >>>>>>> you are relating >>>>>>> about reminds of the >>>>>>> language teaching or >>>>>>> group therapy >>>>>>> technique- where a >>>>>>> group of learners >>>>>>> (or participants in >>>>>>> OD settings) are >>>>>>> instructed to tell a >>>>>>> single coherent and >>>>>>> logical story as a >>>>>>> group. They all take >>>>>>> turns to say a >>>>>>> sentence, a sentence >>>>>>> of not more than 6 >>>>>>> words (depending on >>>>>>> the instructor ), >>>>>>> each time linking >>>>>>> your sentence to the >>>>>>> sentence of previous >>>>>>> articulator, with >>>>>>> the next person also >>>>>>> doing the same, >>>>>>> until the story >>>>>>> sounds complete with >>>>>>> conclusion. More >>>>>>> important is that >>>>>>> they compose this >>>>>>> story impromptu, It >>>>>>> with such stories >>>>>>> that group dynamics >>>>>>> are analysed, and in >>>>>>> group therapy cases, >>>>>>> collective >>>>>>> experiences of >>>>>>> trauma are shared.? >>>>>>> I suppose this is an >>>>>>> example of >>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>> activity, although >>>>>>> previously I would >>>>>>> have thought of it >>>>>>> as just an ?activity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> ] >>>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 >>>>>>> November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>> >>>>>> >; >>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] >>>>>>> Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I remember being >>>>>>> told once that many >>>>>>> languages do not >>>>>>> have separate words >>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>> dancing, because if >>>>>>> you sing you want to >>>>>>> move - until western >>>>>>> civilisation beats >>>>>>> it out of you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know if >>>>>>> this is actually >>>>>>> true, or is it >>>>>>> complete cod? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it is true, does >>>>>>> it have something to >>>>>>> say about the >>>>>>> relationship between >>>>>>> the physical body >>>>>>> and the development >>>>>>> of speech? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, >>>>>>> Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am very >>>>>>> interested in >>>>>>> where this >>>>>>> conversation is >>>>>>> going. I >>>>>>> remember being >>>>>>> in a Theories of >>>>>>> Literacy class >>>>>>> in which Glynda >>>>>>> Hull, the >>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>> showed a video >>>>>>> of a singing >>>>>>> circle somewhere >>>>>>> in the Amazon, >>>>>>> where an >>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>> pattern of >>>>>>> musical phrases >>>>>>> wove in and out >>>>>>> among the >>>>>>> singers >>>>>>> underlaid by >>>>>>> drumming that >>>>>>> included >>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>> call and >>>>>>> response, you >>>>>>> name it. Maybe >>>>>>> 20 people were >>>>>>> involved, all >>>>>>> pushing full >>>>>>> steam ahead to >>>>>>> create something >>>>>>> together that >>>>>>> they all seemed >>>>>>> to know about >>>>>>> but wouldn?t >>>>>>> happen until >>>>>>> they did it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>> someone has >>>>>>> studied the >>>>>>> relationship of >>>>>>> musical >>>>>>> communication >>>>>>> (improvised or >>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>> speech and >>>>>>> gesture? I have >>>>>>> asked musicians >>>>>>> about this and >>>>>>> get blank looks. >>>>>>> Yet clearly you >>>>>>> can tell when >>>>>>> you listen to >>>>>>> different kinds >>>>>>> of music, not >>>>>>> just Amazon drum >>>>>>> and chant >>>>>>> circles, that >>>>>>> there is some >>>>>>> kind of speech - >>>>>>> like potential >>>>>>> embedded there. >>>>>>> The Sonata form >>>>>>> is clearly >>>>>>> involves >>>>>>> exposition (they >>>>>>> even use that >>>>>>> word). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example: the >>>>>>> soundtrack to >>>>>>> the Coen >>>>>>> Brothers? film >>>>>>> Fargo opens with >>>>>>> a musical theme >>>>>>> that says, as >>>>>>> clearly as if we >>>>>>> were reading >>>>>>> aloud from some >>>>>>> children?s book, >>>>>>> ?I am now going >>>>>>> to tell you a >>>>>>> very strange >>>>>>> story that >>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>> impossible but I >>>>>>> promise you >>>>>>> every word of it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>> Only it doesn?t >>>>>>> take that many >>>>>>> words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (18) Fargo >>>>>>> (1996) - 'Fargo, >>>>>>> North Dakota' >>>>>>> (Opening) scene >>>>>>> [1080] - YouTube >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA >>>>>>> 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, >>>>>>> 2018, at >>>>>>> 8:56 AM, >>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the >>>>>>> turn taking >>>>>>> principle a >>>>>>> lot. It >>>>>>> links >>>>>>> language and >>>>>>> music very >>>>>>> nicely: call >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> response. By >>>>>>> voice and >>>>>>> ear. While >>>>>>> gesture is >>>>>>> linked to >>>>>>> visual art. >>>>>>> In >>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>> there is >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>> It?s not >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>> art. Any >>>>>>> human work >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>> a work of >>>>>>> art. Vera >>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>> and Holbrook >>>>>>> Mahn have >>>>>>> talked about >>>>>>> how >>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>> can be a >>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>> ?at the >>>>>>> speed of >>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>> Heady stuff >>>>>>> taking part, >>>>>>> or just >>>>>>> listening >>>>>>> to, this >>>>>>> call and >>>>>>> response >>>>>>> between >>>>>>> smart >>>>>>> people.? And >>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>> when we give >>>>>>> up on dialog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I write >>>>>>> this, I >>>>>>> realize that >>>>>>> the prosodic >>>>>>> aspects of >>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>> are gestural >>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>> to restrict >>>>>>> gesture to >>>>>>> visual >>>>>>> signals. But >>>>>>> I would say >>>>>>> gesture is >>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>> visual, an >>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>> voice. In >>>>>>> surfing the >>>>>>> web, one can >>>>>>> find some >>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>> things on >>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>> between >>>>>>> language and >>>>>>> gesture. I >>>>>>> think it >>>>>>> speaks to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>> of language >>>>>>> in the senses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov >>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>> 2018, at >>>>>>> 7:00 AM, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>> agree >>>>>>> more. >>>>>>> And >>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>> me to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> notion >>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a >>>>>>> feature >>>>>>> I hadn't >>>>>>> considered >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> connection >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>> It makes >>>>>>> sense >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> each >>>>>>> participant >>>>>>> would need >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>> patience >>>>>>> in order >>>>>>> to wait >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> someone >>>>>>> else's >>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much >>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, >>>>>>> Nov 16, >>>>>>> 2018 at >>>>>>> 8:50 AM >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> view, >>>>>>> places >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> lot >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> weight >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> explain >>>>>>> perception >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> others. >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>> participating >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> projects >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>> share >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> common >>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>> object, >>>>>>> is a >>>>>>> form >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> begets >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> long >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> view >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> matter >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> important >>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> development >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> upright >>>>>>> gait >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> frees >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> hands >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>> food >>>>>>> back >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> camp >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> shared >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> important. >>>>>>> None >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On >>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>> am, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> chime >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> submit >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> key >>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> communication >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> know >>>>>>> how >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> rule >>>>>>> came >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> being, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> once >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> did, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>> became >>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>> And >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>> came >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> listening >>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>> roles >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> mental >>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> key >>>>>>> process >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> human >>>>>>> development. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On >>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>> PM >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> book >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> am >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>> provides >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> his >>>>>>> book >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> end, >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>> last >>>>>>> night. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> his >>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> goes >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> unique >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> decided >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>> In >>>>>>> development, >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> always >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> come >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> being. >>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>> found >>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> made >>>>>>> sense >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> develop >>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> begin >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> ability >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> mime >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> facial >>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>> (all >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> reference >>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>> entities >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> further >>>>>>> produces >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> own >>>>>>> development. >>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> millions >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> years, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>> under >>>>>>> strong >>>>>>> selection >>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>> due >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> practice >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>> communication >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> integral >>>>>>> part >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>> In >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> words, >>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>> became >>>>>>> modern >>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>> along >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>> facial >>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> hand >>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> that, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>> collective >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> part >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>> communication >>>>>>> (something >>>>>>> found >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> our >>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>> who >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> elements >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On >>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> made >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> surge >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> innate >>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> collective >>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>> Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>> NY >>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: >>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>> Research >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>> NY 10458 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: >>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This communication >>>>>>> is intended for the >>>>>>> addressee only. It >>>>>>> is confidential. If >>>>>>> you have received >>>>>>> this communication >>>>>>> in error, please >>>>>>> notify us >>>>>>> immediately and >>>>>>> destroy the original >>>>>>> message. You may not >>>>>>> copy or disseminate >>>>>>> this communication >>>>>>> without the >>>>>>> permission of the >>>>>>> University. Only >>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>> signatories are >>>>>>> competent to enter >>>>>>> into agreements on >>>>>>> behalf of the >>>>>>> University and >>>>>>> recipients are thus >>>>>>> advised that the >>>>>>> content of this >>>>>>> message may not be >>>>>>> legally binding on >>>>>>> the University and >>>>>>> may contain the >>>>>>> personal views and >>>>>>> opinions of the >>>>>>> author, which are >>>>>>> not necessarily the >>>>>>> views and opinions >>>>>>> of The University of >>>>>>> the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>> Johannesburg. All >>>>>>> agreements between >>>>>>> the University and >>>>>>> outsiders are >>>>>>> subject to South >>>>>>> African Law unless >>>>>>> the University >>>>>>> agrees in writing to >>>>>>> the contrary. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/6568110a/attachment-0001.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 01:40:44 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 18:40:44 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy-- Actually, Google Translate is, as far as I can tell, an even bigger problem for Chomsky than the human genome project. Chomsky posits a universal grammar, based on abstract principles hardwired into the human brain. Chomsky also posits a modular syntax and a modular vocabulary (words and rules) both of which are separate from the semantics module (thought). This is taken to be the real, biological basis of language in the mind/brain. You would expect, therefore, that any machine translation that approximates the output of a human translation would be basd on similar universal grammar principles and similar modular structure. During the sixties many attempts were made to produce a sentence generator and a sentence parser along these lines. Eventually Christian Matthiessen and others, with help from Halliday, did succeed in producing a good sentence generator (called NIGEL after Halliday's son) using principles abstracted from human language. But of course Halliday denies both the existence of a universal grammar and the modular construction of mind, as well as rejecting the distinction between deep and surface structure upon which transformational theory then rested. Google Translate is really the equivalent of a medieval automaton and not a robot. It has huge data bases of extant translated texts which have already been produced by human translators (including yours truly). If you type in a string in a source language, it will try to find the largest possible string in its data base of texts in that source language and then give you the equivalent string in the data base of translated texts in the target language you want. That's all. This is why it works will with languages that have already been well-translated by human beings (e.g. French and Spanish) and much less well with less translated languages (e.g. Korean). With the non-translated languages, it hardly works at all, since it will have to go through some other language..It is also why you can game Google Translate quite easily if you use it (as we do) to translate Vygotsky: you just change the translation for Vygotsky they give you and push the button which Google gives you that says that they can add your translation to their data base. You will soon find that subsequent translations of that phrase or some similar phrase will give you back the translation which you offered. Google Translate is really a form of crowd sourcing; the product they are selling you is your own God-given sociality and your own shared labour. I'm not saying that's bad; I just saying it's not Chomsky. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, > it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they > think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or > the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same > set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But > this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and > transacted in the human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that > Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out > from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being > the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words > are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate > processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with > Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the > Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis > of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation > as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the > foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or > Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this > formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to > correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the > reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical > languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating > terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to > the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of > the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up > Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the > following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's > ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for > anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about > language!).] > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the > indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this > flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our > dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is > (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion > of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken > language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed > them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) > and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to > the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein > has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first > elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in > numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have > spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the > indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of > "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists > have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one > function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to > iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from > symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). > And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as > the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special > issue in Anthro theory). > > The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes > being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to > understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception > here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - > although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I > suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for > development. > > Cheers, > -greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> Right on, James! >> >> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >> >> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >> >> James >> >> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >> >>> James, >>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> >>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>> >>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>> winter and summer! >>> >>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>> >>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>> haircuts images >>>> . >>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Henry. >>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>> >>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting >>>>> things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, >>>>> whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese >>>>> language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to >>>>> become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. >>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage >>>>> as an *a priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This >>>>> reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are >>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories >>>>> are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin >>>>> ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these >>>>> categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>> discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a >>>>> patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall >>>>> Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external >>>>> and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the >>>>> Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can >>>>>> be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors >>>>>> are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>> >>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have >>>>>>>> long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, >>>>>>>> or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions >>>>>>>> of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are >>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language >>>>>>>>> teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens >>>>>>>>> with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from >>>>>>>>> some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that >>>>>>>>> sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - >>>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion >>>>>>>>> of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before speech >>>>>>>>> was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is always >>>>>>>>> present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into >>>>>>>>> being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made >>>>>>>>> sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with >>>>>>>>> they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial >>>>>>>>> expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present >>>>>>>>> entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the >>>>>>>>> conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the >>>>>>>>> vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice >>>>>>>>> of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary >>>>>>>>> niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually >>>>>>>>> became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions >>>>>>>>> and hand movements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must >>>>>>>>> have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something >>>>>>>>> found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of >>>>>>>>> rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, >>>>>>>>> tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of >>>>>>>>> articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/7fb81e69/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 05:23:50 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:23:50 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: <926ea3a3-45ed-c1f6-510d-33639148e3e7@marxists.org> Oh Thanks for that explanation, David! Now I don't have to bow before mathematical linguists every time I do a search. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/12/2018 8:40 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Actually, Google Translate is, as far as I can tell, an > even bigger problem for Chomsky than the human genome > project.?Chomsky posits a universal grammar, based on > abstract principles hardwired into the human brain. > Chomsky also posits a modular syntax?and?a modular > vocabulary?(words and rules) both of which are separate > from?the semantics module (thought).?This is taken to be > the real, biological basis of language in the > mind/brain.?You would expect, therefore, that any machine > translation that approximates the output of a human > translation would be basd on similar universal grammar > principles and similar modular structure. > > During the sixties many attempts were made to produce a > sentence generator and a sentence parser along these > lines.?Eventually Christian Matthiessen and others, with > help from Halliday, did succeed in producing a good > sentence generator (called NIGEL after Halliday's son) > using principles abstracted from human?language. But of > course Halliday denies both the existence of a universal > grammar and the modular construction of mind, as well as > rejecting the distinction between deep and surface > structure upon which transformational theory then rested. > > Google Translate is really the equivalent of a medieval > automaton and not a robot. It has huge data bases of > extant translated texts which have already been produced > by human translators (including yours truly). If you type > in a string in a source language, it will try to find?the > largest possible string in its data base of?texts in that > source language?and?then give you the?equivalent string in > the data base of translated texts in the target language > you want. That's all. > > This is why it works will with?languages that?have already > been well-translated by human beings (e.g. French > and?Spanish)?and much less well with less translated > languages (e.g. Korean). With the non-translated > languages, it hardly works at all, since it will have to > go through some other language..It is also why you can > game Google Translate quite easily if you use it (as we > do) to translate Vygotsky: you just change the translation > for Vygotsky they give you and push the button which > Google gives you that says that they can add your > translation to their data base. You will soon?find that > subsequent translations of that phrase or some similar > phrase will give you back the translation which you offered. > > Google?Translate is really a form of crowd sourcing; the > product they are selling you is your own God-given > sociality and your own shared labour. I'm not saying > that's bad; I just saying it's not Chomsky. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan > idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: > "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or > otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about > such things as psychological functioning" and > therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what > people do as well as what they think. In other words, > the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the > babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of > monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of > concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in > conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial > and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the > human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal > disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a > tool of analysis, and often insights come out from > such formal disciplines relevant to the real world > (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One > really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean > signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has > language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I > interpret the equation of language with Peircean > signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to > grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device > "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of > language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, > neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings > in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, > i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, > but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem > with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in > wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an > ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group >> for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously >> (the proliferation of technical languages in >> different fields and the time-intensive labor of >> translating terms/meanings of entire systems of >> thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add >> the fact that there are few who have much interest in >> one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. >> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a >> tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at >> all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply >> because this is an impossible situation for anyone to >> commit to learning an entirely new language for >> talking about language!).] >> >> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would >> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of >> SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the >> oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken >> word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to >> assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and >> gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way >> into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and >> iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out >> of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses >> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as >> irrelevant to his project). >> >> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of >> the first to point to the problem of this dominant >> ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has >> made a rather substantial career off of this simple >> point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on >> "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. >> Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by >> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken >> language in the concepts of "indexicality" and >> "iconization". More recently linguistic >> anthropologists have considered the processes by >> which sign-functions can shift from one function to >> another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or >> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's >> work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to >> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >> And others have looked at more basic features of >> sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia >> (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >> issue in Anthro theory). >> >> The relevance of all this for the present list serve >> is that the processes being described by these >> linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to >> understanding human psychological functioning and yet >> most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or >> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about >> such things as psychological functioning (one >> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book >> Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that >> his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I >> suspect that this could be a particularly productive >> intersection for development. >> >> Cheers, >> -greg >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >> > wrote: >> >> Right on, James! >> >>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to >>> be exploratory and free style, allowing for the >>> coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When >>> it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will >>> switch the code. >>> >>> James >>> >>> HENRY SHONERD >> > ? 2018?11?29??? >>> 18:58??? >>> >>> James, >>> This conversation has been so satisfying I >>> don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am >>> not tiring you or others with all the >>> connections I find. But, in the spirit of >>> Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking >>> and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is >>> a rich gesture, an important concept in this >>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >>> communication present in many species. >>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a >>> rudimentary form of language with >>> evolutionary results in human language. >>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >>> business of quotes in the subject line now >>> taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on >>> the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and >>> Language as an issue of gesture. Language, >>> written language in this case, is limited in >>> its ability to provide nuance. Writing >>> without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to >>> author sources familar in the day that >>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at >>> Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of >>> language where in ?tension?: 1) make >>> yourself clear and 2) get it said before >>> losing the thread of thinking and talking. >>> Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect >>> of discourse that helps to address this >>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, >>> with temporal constraints that belie the >>> idea that a single turn can ever be totally >>> clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are >>> doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on >>> posting our turns. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>> this?subject line! >>>> >>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily >>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>>> have?because he has much thicker hair than >>>> most boys. Unfortunately?last year the boy >>>> had a?one-day?show off in?the classroom?and >>>> was?ticked off by?the school?authority (in >>>> China).?However,?my brother has?managed to >>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>> during?the boy's?long school holiday in >>>> winter and summer! >>>> >>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are >>>> predictable due to participants' >>>> intersubjective awareness of the subject. >>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation (just like >>>> each individual's ducktail unique?to >>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of the >>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's more, >>>> such?nuances?create the fluidity of >>>> conversation which makes it?difficult (or >>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what comes >>>> next - this is perhaps the whole point that >>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>> out?earlier. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Back at you, James. The images of the >>>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair >>>> style popularin the late 50s when I was >>>> in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>> haircuts images >>>> . >>>> One of the photos in the link is of >>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note >>>> that some of the photos are of women, >>>> interesting in light of issues of >>>> gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>> remember when women started taking on >>>> the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis >>>> Presley, this post counts as relevant >>>> to the subject line! Ha! >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought >>>>> you might like to see: >>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>> >>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and >>>>> providing it is a move on this >>>>> subject line that instantiates >>>>> nicely Gee?s conception of >>>>> discourse. Thanks for your >>>>> thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on >>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>> interesting things is his >>>>>> conception of displacement as the >>>>>> hallmark of language, whether >>>>>> iconic, indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the >>>>>> sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>> sublimated over time to become >>>>>> something more integrated into >>>>>> the words themselves as >>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's >>>>>> ideas are suggestive of the study >>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a priori >>>>>> /process, involving scrupulous >>>>>> deduction. This reminds me of >>>>>> methods used in diachronic >>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are >>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as >>>>>> those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>> "intramental", I can see your >>>>>> point. In fact I don't?take >>>>>> Vygotsky's "interpsychological" >>>>>> and "intrapsychological" >>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies or >>>>>> binary opposites. Whenever it >>>>>> comes to their relationship, I >>>>>> tend to have a post-structuralism >>>>>> imagery present in my mind, >>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any idea >>>>>> is not entirely distinct from >>>>>> other ideas in terms of the >>>>>> "thing itself"; rather, it >>>>>> entails a supplement of the other >>>>>> idea which is?already embedded in >>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>> categoriesare relational >>>>>> (dialectical); they are somehow >>>>>> like a pair of mandarin ducks >>>>>> (see attached image). I also like >>>>>> to think that each of these >>>>>> categories is both >>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>>> discourse is in tune with James >>>>>> Gee's conception of discourse as >>>>>> a patchwork of actions, >>>>>> interactions, thoughts, feelings >>>>>> etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff >>>>>> talking about there being no >>>>>> boundary between the external and >>>>>> the internal or the boundary >>>>>> being blurred (during her >>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate School of >>>>>> Education at Bristol in 2001 >>>>>> while?I was?doing my PhD). >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>> stringing together turns in >>>>>> verbal interaction. The wiki >>>>>> on Bickerton I have linked is >>>>>> short and raises issues >>>>>> discussed in this subject >>>>>> line and in the subject line >>>>>> on Corballis. Bickerton >>>>>> brings me back to the >>>>>> circularity of discourse and >>>>>> the development of discourse >>>>>> competence. Usage-based >>>>>> grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>> that complex grammar >>>>>> developed out of the pidgins >>>>>> of our ancestors is >>>>>> interesting. Do I see a >>>>>> chicken/egg problem that for >>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the intramental >>>>>> forms of semiotic mediation >>>>>> is better understood by >>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>> intermental processes?? I >>>>>> don?t know. Could one say >>>>>> that inner speech is the >>>>>> vehicle for turning discourse >>>>>> into grammar? Bickerton >>>>>> claimed a strong biological >>>>>> component to human language, >>>>>> though I don?t remember if he >>>>>> was a Chomskian. I hope this >>>>>> is coherent thinking in the >>>>>> context of our conversation. >>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, >>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg >>>>>>> - intersubjectivity is >>>>>>> relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>> intersubjectivity transcends >>>>>>> "outlines"?or perhaps >>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" >>>>>>> and "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) into >>>>>>> what Rommetveit termed?the >>>>>>> "draft of a contract". This >>>>>>> is because shared >>>>>>> understanding?makes explicit >>>>>>> and external what would >>>>>>> otherwise remain implicit >>>>>>> and internal. Rommetveit >>>>>>> argues that?private worlds >>>>>>> can only be transcended up >>>>>>> to a certain level and >>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree >>>>>>> upon?the?draft of a contract >>>>>>> with which the communication >>>>>>> can be initiated. In the >>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he uses >>>>>>> a "pluralistic" and >>>>>>> "social-cognitive" approach >>>>>>> to human communication - and >>>>>>> especially to the problem of >>>>>>> linguistic mediation and >>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>> functioning, with reference >>>>>>> to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>> the?intramental forms of >>>>>>> semiotic mediation?is better >>>>>>> understood?by examining the >>>>>>> types of intermental processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think?these intermental >>>>>>> processes (just?like >>>>>>> intramental ones) can be >>>>>>> boiled down or distilled?to >>>>>>> signs and symbols with which >>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony >>>>>>> during?a conversation or any >>>>>>> other joint activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no >>>>>>> directors and symphonic >>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>> metalogue "why do things >>>>>>> have outlines" >>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>> it raises the question >>>>>>> of units and elements, >>>>>>> of how a song, a >>>>>>> dance,?a poem, a >>>>>>> conversation, to make >>>>>>> sense, they must have a >>>>>>> recognizable outline, >>>>>>> even in improvisation; >>>>>>> they must be wholes, or >>>>>>> suggest wholes. That >>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>> "predictable".?And yet, >>>>>>> when you are immersed in >>>>>>> a conversation, the fact >>>>>>> that you can >>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>> what comes next is the >>>>>>> whole point that?keep >>>>>>> us?talking, dancing, >>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 >>>>>>> 06:22 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>> language and music >>>>>>> I?d like to add to the >>>>>>> call and response >>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>> conversation itself, is >>>>>>> staged. There are >>>>>>> performers and and an >>>>>>> audience made up partly >>>>>>> of performers >>>>>>> themselves. How many are >>>>>>> lurkers, as I am >>>>>>> usually? This >>>>>>> conversation has no >>>>>>> director, but there are >>>>>>> leaders. There is >>>>>>> symphonic potential. And >>>>>>> even gestural potential, >>>>>>> making the chat a dance. >>>>>>> All on line.:) >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For many years I used >>>>>>>> the work of Ellen >>>>>>>> Dissenyake to teach >>>>>>>> comm classes about >>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>> She is quite unusual in >>>>>>>> ways that might find >>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at >>>>>>>> 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, >>>>>>>> whatever each of >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> has constructed >>>>>>>> internally is the >>>>>>>> signified, i.e. his >>>>>>>> or her >>>>>>>> understanding and >>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>> vocalised (spoken >>>>>>>> out), it becomes >>>>>>>> the signifier to >>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>> What's more, when >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> work together to >>>>>>>> compose a story >>>>>>>> impromptu, each of >>>>>>>> their signifiers >>>>>>>> turns into a new >>>>>>>> signified ? a >>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>> fabric of meaning >>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>> Chinese language, >>>>>>>> words for singing >>>>>>>> and dancing have >>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>> inseparably. As I >>>>>>>> see it,?they are >>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>> adjusted to allow >>>>>>>> for, the feelings, >>>>>>>> emotions, actions >>>>>>>> and interactions of >>>>>>>> a consciousness who >>>>>>>> is experiencing the >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing. Here are >>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- singing and >>>>>>>> dancing rapturously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>> dancingvillage and >>>>>>>> singing club >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- citizens of >>>>>>>> ancient Yan and >>>>>>>> Zhao good at >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>> wonderful songs and >>>>>>>> dances >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- a church or >>>>>>>> building set up for >>>>>>>> singing and dancing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 >>>>>>>> at 19:08, Simangele >>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> conversation is >>>>>>>> getting even >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>> not that I have >>>>>>>> an informed >>>>>>>> answer for you >>>>>>>> Rob, I can only >>>>>>>> think of the >>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>> Anthems where >>>>>>>> people stand >>>>>>>> still when >>>>>>>> singing, even >>>>>>>> then this is >>>>>>>> observed only >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other occasions >>>>>>>> when people are >>>>>>>> likely not to >>>>>>>> move when >>>>>>>> singing when >>>>>>>> there is death >>>>>>>> and the mood is >>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> rhythmic body >>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>> called dance >>>>>>>> are a norm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This then makes >>>>>>>> me ?wonder what >>>>>>>> this means in >>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>> functioning, in >>>>>>>> the light of >>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>> stages ? of >>>>>>>> language and >>>>>>>> thought. Would >>>>>>>> the body >>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>> constitute the >>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>> of the thoughts >>>>>>>> contained in >>>>>>>> the music? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena ? the >>>>>>>> video you are >>>>>>>> relating about >>>>>>>> reminds of the >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> teaching or >>>>>>>> group therapy >>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>> where a group >>>>>>>> of learners (or >>>>>>>> participants in >>>>>>>> OD settings) >>>>>>>> are instructed >>>>>>>> to tell a >>>>>>>> single coherent >>>>>>>> and logical >>>>>>>> story as a >>>>>>>> group. They all >>>>>>>> take turns to >>>>>>>> say a sentence, >>>>>>>> a sentence of >>>>>>>> not more than 6 >>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>> (depending on >>>>>>>> the instructor >>>>>>>> ), each time >>>>>>>> linking your >>>>>>>> sentence to the >>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>> with the next >>>>>>>> person also >>>>>>>> doing the same, >>>>>>>> until the story >>>>>>>> sounds complete >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>> More important >>>>>>>> is that they >>>>>>>> compose this >>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>> impromptu, It >>>>>>>> with such >>>>>>>> stories that >>>>>>>> group dynamics >>>>>>>> are analysed, >>>>>>>> and in group >>>>>>>> therapy cases, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> experiences of >>>>>>>> trauma are >>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>> suppose this is >>>>>>>> an example of >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>> previously I >>>>>>>> would have >>>>>>>> thought of it >>>>>>>> as just an >>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, >>>>>>>> 16 November >>>>>>>> 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended >>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, >>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>>> Michael C. >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>> being told once >>>>>>>> that many >>>>>>>> languages do >>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>> separate words >>>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>> because if you >>>>>>>> sing you want >>>>>>>> to move - until >>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>> beats it out of >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody >>>>>>>> know if this is >>>>>>>> actually true, >>>>>>>> or is it >>>>>>>> complete cod? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it is true, >>>>>>>> does it have >>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>> say about the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> physical body >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> development of >>>>>>>> speech? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 17:29, Helena >>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> in where >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> is going. I >>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>> being in a >>>>>>>> Theories of >>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>> class in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>> Hull, the >>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>> showed a >>>>>>>> video of a >>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>> where an >>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>> pattern of >>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>> wove in and >>>>>>>> out among >>>>>>>> the singers >>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>> by drumming >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>> you name >>>>>>>> it. Maybe >>>>>>>> 20 people >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>> all pushing >>>>>>>> full steam >>>>>>>> ahead to >>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>> all seemed >>>>>>>> to know >>>>>>>> about but >>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>> until they >>>>>>>> did it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>> someone has >>>>>>>> studied the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> of musical >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>> speech and >>>>>>>> gesture? I >>>>>>>> have asked >>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>> and get >>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>> looks. Yet >>>>>>>> clearly you >>>>>>>> can tell >>>>>>>> when you >>>>>>>> listen to >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> kinds of >>>>>>>> music, not >>>>>>>> just Amazon >>>>>>>> drum and >>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>> that there >>>>>>>> is some >>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>> speech - >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>> there. The >>>>>>>> Sonata form >>>>>>>> is clearly >>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>> (they even >>>>>>>> use that >>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>> to the Coen >>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>> film Fargo >>>>>>>> opens with >>>>>>>> a musical >>>>>>>> theme that >>>>>>>> says, as >>>>>>>> clearly as >>>>>>>> if we were >>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>> aloud from >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>> book, ?I am >>>>>>>> now going >>>>>>>> to tell you >>>>>>>> a very >>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>> story that >>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> promise you >>>>>>>> every word >>>>>>>> of it is >>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>> Only it >>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>> many words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (18) Fargo >>>>>>>> (1996) - >>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>> [1080] - >>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>> CA 94707 >>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blog US/ >>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at 8:56 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> and Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>> a lot. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> art. In >>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is this >>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>> a work >>>>>>>> of art. >>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>> ?at the >>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>> or just >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>> when we >>>>>>>> give up >>>>>>>> on dialog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>> this, I >>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>> one can >>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is intended for >>>>>>>> the addressee >>>>>>>> only. It is >>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>> If you have >>>>>>>> received this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>> please notify >>>>>>>> us immediately >>>>>>>> and destroy the >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>> message. You >>>>>>>> may not copy or >>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> without the >>>>>>>> permission of >>>>>>>> the University. >>>>>>>> Only authorised >>>>>>>> signatories are >>>>>>>> competent to >>>>>>>> enter into >>>>>>>> agreements on >>>>>>>> behalf of the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> recipients are >>>>>>>> thus advised >>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>> content of this >>>>>>>> message may not >>>>>>>> be legally >>>>>>>> binding on the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> may contain the >>>>>>>> personal views >>>>>>>> and opinions of >>>>>>>> the author, >>>>>>>> which are not >>>>>>>> necessarily the >>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>> opinions of The >>>>>>>> University of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>> All agreements >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> outsiders are >>>>>>>> subject to >>>>>>>> South African >>>>>>>> Law unless the >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>> writing to the >>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/6826e8e3/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 05:23:34 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:23:34 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: Oh Thanks for that explanation, David! Now I don't have to bow before mathematical linguists every time I do a search. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/12/2018 8:40 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Actually, Google Translate is, as far as I can tell, an > even bigger problem for Chomsky than the human genome > project.?Chomsky posits a universal grammar, based on > abstract principles hardwired into the human brain. > Chomsky also posits a modular syntax?and?a modular > vocabulary?(words and rules) both of which are separate > from?the semantics module (thought).?This is taken to be > the real, biological basis of language in the > mind/brain.?You would expect, therefore, that any machine > translation that approximates the output of a human > translation would be basd on similar universal grammar > principles and similar modular structure. > > During the sixties many attempts were made to produce a > sentence generator and a sentence parser along these > lines.?Eventually Christian Matthiessen and others, with > help from Halliday, did succeed in producing a good > sentence generator (called NIGEL after Halliday's son) > using principles abstracted from human?language. But of > course Halliday denies both the existence of a universal > grammar and the modular construction of mind, as well as > rejecting the distinction between deep and surface > structure upon which transformational theory then rested. > > Google Translate is really the equivalent of a medieval > automaton and not a robot. It has huge data bases of > extant translated texts which have already been produced > by human translators (including yours truly). If you type > in a string in a source language, it will try to find?the > largest possible string in its data base of?texts in that > source language?and?then give you the?equivalent string in > the data base of translated texts in the target language > you want. That's all. > > This is why it works will with?languages that?have already > been well-translated by human beings (e.g. French > and?Spanish)?and much less well with less translated > languages (e.g. Korean). With the non-translated > languages, it hardly works at all, since it will have to > go through some other language..It is also why you can > game Google Translate quite easily if you use it (as we > do) to translate Vygotsky: you just change the translation > for Vygotsky they give you and push the button which > Google gives you that says that they can add your > translation to their data base. You will soon?find that > subsequent translations of that phrase or some similar > phrase will give you back the translation which you offered. > > Google?Translate is really a form of crowd sourcing; the > product they are selling you is your own God-given > sociality and your own shared labour. I'm not saying > that's bad; I just saying it's not Chomsky. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan > idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: > "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or > otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about > such things as psychological functioning" and > therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what > people do as well as what they think. In other words, > the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the > babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of > monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of > concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in > conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial > and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the > human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal > disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a > tool of analysis, and often insights come out from > such formal disciplines relevant to the real world > (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One > really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean > signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has > language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I > interpret the equation of language with Peircean > signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to > grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device > "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of > language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, > neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings > in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, > i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, > but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem > with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in > wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an > ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group >> for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously >> (the proliferation of technical languages in >> different fields and the time-intensive labor of >> translating terms/meanings of entire systems of >> thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add >> the fact that there are few who have much interest in >> one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. >> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a >> tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at >> all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply >> because this is an impossible situation for anyone to >> commit to learning an entirely new language for >> talking about language!).] >> >> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would >> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of >> SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the >> oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken >> word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to >> assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and >> gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way >> into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and >> iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out >> of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses >> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as >> irrelevant to his project). >> >> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of >> the first to point to the problem of this dominant >> ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has >> made a rather substantial career off of this simple >> point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on >> "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. >> Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by >> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken >> language in the concepts of "indexicality" and >> "iconization". More recently linguistic >> anthropologists have considered the processes by >> which sign-functions can shift from one function to >> another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or >> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's >> work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to >> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >> And others have looked at more basic features of >> sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia >> (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >> issue in Anthro theory). >> >> The relevance of all this for the present list serve >> is that the processes being described by these >> linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to >> understanding human psychological functioning and yet >> most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or >> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about >> such things as psychological functioning (one >> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book >> Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that >> his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I >> suspect that this could be a particularly productive >> intersection for development. >> >> Cheers, >> -greg >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >> > wrote: >> >> Right on, James! >> >>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to >>> be exploratory and free style, allowing for the >>> coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When >>> it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will >>> switch the code. >>> >>> James >>> >>> HENRY SHONERD >> > ? 2018?11?29??? >>> 18:58??? >>> >>> James, >>> This conversation has been so satisfying I >>> don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am >>> not tiring you or others with all the >>> connections I find. But, in the spirit of >>> Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking >>> and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is >>> a rich gesture, an important concept in this >>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >>> communication present in many species. >>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a >>> rudimentary form of language with >>> evolutionary results in human language. >>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >>> business of quotes in the subject line now >>> taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on >>> the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and >>> Language as an issue of gesture. Language, >>> written language in this case, is limited in >>> its ability to provide nuance. Writing >>> without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to >>> author sources familar in the day that >>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at >>> Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of >>> language where in ?tension?: 1) make >>> yourself clear and 2) get it said before >>> losing the thread of thinking and talking. >>> Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect >>> of discourse that helps to address this >>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, >>> with temporal constraints that belie the >>> idea that a single turn can ever be totally >>> clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are >>> doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on >>> posting our turns. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>> this?subject line! >>>> >>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily >>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>>> have?because he has much thicker hair than >>>> most boys. Unfortunately?last year the boy >>>> had a?one-day?show off in?the classroom?and >>>> was?ticked off by?the school?authority (in >>>> China).?However,?my brother has?managed to >>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>> during?the boy's?long school holiday in >>>> winter and summer! >>>> >>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are >>>> predictable due to participants' >>>> intersubjective awareness of the subject. >>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation (just like >>>> each individual's ducktail unique?to >>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of the >>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's more, >>>> such?nuances?create the fluidity of >>>> conversation which makes it?difficult (or >>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what comes >>>> next - this is perhaps the whole point that >>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>> out?earlier. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Back at you, James. The images of the >>>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair >>>> style popularin the late 50s when I was >>>> in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>> haircuts images >>>> . >>>> One of the photos in the link is of >>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note >>>> that some of the photos are of women, >>>> interesting in light of issues of >>>> gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>> remember when women started taking on >>>> the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis >>>> Presley, this post counts as relevant >>>> to the subject line! Ha! >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought >>>>> you might like to see: >>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>> >>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and >>>>> providing it is a move on this >>>>> subject line that instantiates >>>>> nicely Gee?s conception of >>>>> discourse. Thanks for your >>>>> thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on >>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>> interesting things is his >>>>>> conception of displacement as the >>>>>> hallmark of language, whether >>>>>> iconic, indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the >>>>>> sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>> sublimated over time to become >>>>>> something more integrated into >>>>>> the words themselves as >>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's >>>>>> ideas are suggestive of the study >>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a priori >>>>>> /process, involving scrupulous >>>>>> deduction. This reminds me of >>>>>> methods used in diachronic >>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are >>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as >>>>>> those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>> "intramental", I can see your >>>>>> point. In fact I don't?take >>>>>> Vygotsky's "interpsychological" >>>>>> and "intrapsychological" >>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies or >>>>>> binary opposites. Whenever it >>>>>> comes to their relationship, I >>>>>> tend to have a post-structuralism >>>>>> imagery present in my mind, >>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any idea >>>>>> is not entirely distinct from >>>>>> other ideas in terms of the >>>>>> "thing itself"; rather, it >>>>>> entails a supplement of the other >>>>>> idea which is?already embedded in >>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>> categoriesare relational >>>>>> (dialectical); they are somehow >>>>>> like a pair of mandarin ducks >>>>>> (see attached image). I also like >>>>>> to think that each of these >>>>>> categories is both >>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>>> discourse is in tune with James >>>>>> Gee's conception of discourse as >>>>>> a patchwork of actions, >>>>>> interactions, thoughts, feelings >>>>>> etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff >>>>>> talking about there being no >>>>>> boundary between the external and >>>>>> the internal or the boundary >>>>>> being blurred (during her >>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate School of >>>>>> Education at Bristol in 2001 >>>>>> while?I was?doing my PhD). >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>> stringing together turns in >>>>>> verbal interaction. The wiki >>>>>> on Bickerton I have linked is >>>>>> short and raises issues >>>>>> discussed in this subject >>>>>> line and in the subject line >>>>>> on Corballis. Bickerton >>>>>> brings me back to the >>>>>> circularity of discourse and >>>>>> the development of discourse >>>>>> competence. Usage-based >>>>>> grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>> that complex grammar >>>>>> developed out of the pidgins >>>>>> of our ancestors is >>>>>> interesting. Do I see a >>>>>> chicken/egg problem that for >>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the intramental >>>>>> forms of semiotic mediation >>>>>> is better understood by >>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>> intermental processes?? I >>>>>> don?t know. Could one say >>>>>> that inner speech is the >>>>>> vehicle for turning discourse >>>>>> into grammar? Bickerton >>>>>> claimed a strong biological >>>>>> component to human language, >>>>>> though I don?t remember if he >>>>>> was a Chomskian. I hope this >>>>>> is coherent thinking in the >>>>>> context of our conversation. >>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, >>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg >>>>>>> - intersubjectivity is >>>>>>> relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>> intersubjectivity transcends >>>>>>> "outlines"?or perhaps >>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" >>>>>>> and "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) into >>>>>>> what Rommetveit termed?the >>>>>>> "draft of a contract". This >>>>>>> is because shared >>>>>>> understanding?makes explicit >>>>>>> and external what would >>>>>>> otherwise remain implicit >>>>>>> and internal. Rommetveit >>>>>>> argues that?private worlds >>>>>>> can only be transcended up >>>>>>> to a certain level and >>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree >>>>>>> upon?the?draft of a contract >>>>>>> with which the communication >>>>>>> can be initiated. In the >>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he uses >>>>>>> a "pluralistic" and >>>>>>> "social-cognitive" approach >>>>>>> to human communication - and >>>>>>> especially to the problem of >>>>>>> linguistic mediation and >>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>> functioning, with reference >>>>>>> to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>> the?intramental forms of >>>>>>> semiotic mediation?is better >>>>>>> understood?by examining the >>>>>>> types of intermental processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think?these intermental >>>>>>> processes (just?like >>>>>>> intramental ones) can be >>>>>>> boiled down or distilled?to >>>>>>> signs and symbols with which >>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony >>>>>>> during?a conversation or any >>>>>>> other joint activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no >>>>>>> directors and symphonic >>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>> metalogue "why do things >>>>>>> have outlines" >>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>> it raises the question >>>>>>> of units and elements, >>>>>>> of how a song, a >>>>>>> dance,?a poem, a >>>>>>> conversation, to make >>>>>>> sense, they must have a >>>>>>> recognizable outline, >>>>>>> even in improvisation; >>>>>>> they must be wholes, or >>>>>>> suggest wholes. That >>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>> "predictable".?And yet, >>>>>>> when you are immersed in >>>>>>> a conversation, the fact >>>>>>> that you can >>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>> what comes next is the >>>>>>> whole point that?keep >>>>>>> us?talking, dancing, >>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 >>>>>>> 06:22 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>> language and music >>>>>>> I?d like to add to the >>>>>>> call and response >>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>> conversation itself, is >>>>>>> staged. There are >>>>>>> performers and and an >>>>>>> audience made up partly >>>>>>> of performers >>>>>>> themselves. How many are >>>>>>> lurkers, as I am >>>>>>> usually? This >>>>>>> conversation has no >>>>>>> director, but there are >>>>>>> leaders. There is >>>>>>> symphonic potential. And >>>>>>> even gestural potential, >>>>>>> making the chat a dance. >>>>>>> All on line.:) >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For many years I used >>>>>>>> the work of Ellen >>>>>>>> Dissenyake to teach >>>>>>>> comm classes about >>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>> She is quite unusual in >>>>>>>> ways that might find >>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at >>>>>>>> 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, >>>>>>>> whatever each of >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> has constructed >>>>>>>> internally is the >>>>>>>> signified, i.e. his >>>>>>>> or her >>>>>>>> understanding and >>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>> vocalised (spoken >>>>>>>> out), it becomes >>>>>>>> the signifier to >>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>> What's more, when >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> work together to >>>>>>>> compose a story >>>>>>>> impromptu, each of >>>>>>>> their signifiers >>>>>>>> turns into a new >>>>>>>> signified ? a >>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>> fabric of meaning >>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>> Chinese language, >>>>>>>> words for singing >>>>>>>> and dancing have >>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>> inseparably. As I >>>>>>>> see it,?they are >>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>> adjusted to allow >>>>>>>> for, the feelings, >>>>>>>> emotions, actions >>>>>>>> and interactions of >>>>>>>> a consciousness who >>>>>>>> is experiencing the >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing. Here are >>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- singing and >>>>>>>> dancing rapturously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>> dancingvillage and >>>>>>>> singing club >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- citizens of >>>>>>>> ancient Yan and >>>>>>>> Zhao good at >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>> wonderful songs and >>>>>>>> dances >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- a church or >>>>>>>> building set up for >>>>>>>> singing and dancing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 >>>>>>>> at 19:08, Simangele >>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> conversation is >>>>>>>> getting even >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>> not that I have >>>>>>>> an informed >>>>>>>> answer for you >>>>>>>> Rob, I can only >>>>>>>> think of the >>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>> Anthems where >>>>>>>> people stand >>>>>>>> still when >>>>>>>> singing, even >>>>>>>> then this is >>>>>>>> observed only >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other occasions >>>>>>>> when people are >>>>>>>> likely not to >>>>>>>> move when >>>>>>>> singing when >>>>>>>> there is death >>>>>>>> and the mood is >>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> rhythmic body >>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>> called dance >>>>>>>> are a norm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This then makes >>>>>>>> me ?wonder what >>>>>>>> this means in >>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>> functioning, in >>>>>>>> the light of >>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>> stages ? of >>>>>>>> language and >>>>>>>> thought. Would >>>>>>>> the body >>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>> constitute the >>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>> of the thoughts >>>>>>>> contained in >>>>>>>> the music? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena ? the >>>>>>>> video you are >>>>>>>> relating about >>>>>>>> reminds of the >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> teaching or >>>>>>>> group therapy >>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>> where a group >>>>>>>> of learners (or >>>>>>>> participants in >>>>>>>> OD settings) >>>>>>>> are instructed >>>>>>>> to tell a >>>>>>>> single coherent >>>>>>>> and logical >>>>>>>> story as a >>>>>>>> group. They all >>>>>>>> take turns to >>>>>>>> say a sentence, >>>>>>>> a sentence of >>>>>>>> not more than 6 >>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>> (depending on >>>>>>>> the instructor >>>>>>>> ), each time >>>>>>>> linking your >>>>>>>> sentence to the >>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>> with the next >>>>>>>> person also >>>>>>>> doing the same, >>>>>>>> until the story >>>>>>>> sounds complete >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>> More important >>>>>>>> is that they >>>>>>>> compose this >>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>> impromptu, It >>>>>>>> with such >>>>>>>> stories that >>>>>>>> group dynamics >>>>>>>> are analysed, >>>>>>>> and in group >>>>>>>> therapy cases, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> experiences of >>>>>>>> trauma are >>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>> suppose this is >>>>>>>> an example of >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>> previously I >>>>>>>> would have >>>>>>>> thought of it >>>>>>>> as just an >>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, >>>>>>>> 16 November >>>>>>>> 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended >>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, >>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>>> Michael C. >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>> being told once >>>>>>>> that many >>>>>>>> languages do >>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>> separate words >>>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>> because if you >>>>>>>> sing you want >>>>>>>> to move - until >>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>> beats it out of >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody >>>>>>>> know if this is >>>>>>>> actually true, >>>>>>>> or is it >>>>>>>> complete cod? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it is true, >>>>>>>> does it have >>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>> say about the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> physical body >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> development of >>>>>>>> speech? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 17:29, Helena >>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> in where >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> is going. I >>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>> being in a >>>>>>>> Theories of >>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>> class in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>> Hull, the >>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>> showed a >>>>>>>> video of a >>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>> where an >>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>> pattern of >>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>> wove in and >>>>>>>> out among >>>>>>>> the singers >>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>> by drumming >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>> you name >>>>>>>> it. Maybe >>>>>>>> 20 people >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>> all pushing >>>>>>>> full steam >>>>>>>> ahead to >>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>> all seemed >>>>>>>> to know >>>>>>>> about but >>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>> until they >>>>>>>> did it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>> someone has >>>>>>>> studied the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> of musical >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>> speech and >>>>>>>> gesture? I >>>>>>>> have asked >>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>> and get >>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>> looks. Yet >>>>>>>> clearly you >>>>>>>> can tell >>>>>>>> when you >>>>>>>> listen to >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> kinds of >>>>>>>> music, not >>>>>>>> just Amazon >>>>>>>> drum and >>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>> that there >>>>>>>> is some >>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>> speech - >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>> there. The >>>>>>>> Sonata form >>>>>>>> is clearly >>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>> (they even >>>>>>>> use that >>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>> to the Coen >>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>> film Fargo >>>>>>>> opens with >>>>>>>> a musical >>>>>>>> theme that >>>>>>>> says, as >>>>>>>> clearly as >>>>>>>> if we were >>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>> aloud from >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>> book, ?I am >>>>>>>> now going >>>>>>>> to tell you >>>>>>>> a very >>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>> story that >>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> promise you >>>>>>>> every word >>>>>>>> of it is >>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>> Only it >>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>> many words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (18) Fargo >>>>>>>> (1996) - >>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>> [1080] - >>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>> CA 94707 >>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blog US/ >>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at 8:56 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> and Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>> a lot. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> art. In >>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is this >>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>> a work >>>>>>>> of art. >>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>> ?at the >>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>> or just >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>> when we >>>>>>>> give up >>>>>>>> on dialog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>> this, I >>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>> one can >>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is intended for >>>>>>>> the addressee >>>>>>>> only. It is >>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>> If you have >>>>>>>> received this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>> please notify >>>>>>>> us immediately >>>>>>>> and destroy the >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>> message. You >>>>>>>> may not copy or >>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> without the >>>>>>>> permission of >>>>>>>> the University. >>>>>>>> Only authorised >>>>>>>> signatories are >>>>>>>> competent to >>>>>>>> enter into >>>>>>>> agreements on >>>>>>>> behalf of the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> recipients are >>>>>>>> thus advised >>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>> content of this >>>>>>>> message may not >>>>>>>> be legally >>>>>>>> binding on the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> may contain the >>>>>>>> personal views >>>>>>>> and opinions of >>>>>>>> the author, >>>>>>>> which are not >>>>>>>> necessarily the >>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>> opinions of The >>>>>>>> University of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>> All agreements >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> outsiders are >>>>>>>> subject to >>>>>>>> South African >>>>>>>> Law unless the >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>> writing to the >>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/76748a1d/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 16:53:46 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 17:53:46 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen rule! Cheers, greg On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, > it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they > think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or > the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same > set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But > this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and > transacted in the human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that > Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out > from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being > the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words > are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate > processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with > Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the > Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis > of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation > as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the > foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or > Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this > formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to > correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the > reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical > languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating > terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to > the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of > the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up > Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the > following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's > ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for > anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about > language!).] > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the > indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this > flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our > dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is > (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion > of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken > language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed > them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) > and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to > the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein > has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first > elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in > numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have > spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the > indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of > "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists > have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one > function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to > iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from > symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). > And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as > the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special > issue in Anthro theory). > > The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes > being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to > understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception > here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - > although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I > suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for > development. > > Cheers, > -greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> Right on, James! >> >> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >> >> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >> >> James >> >> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >> >>> James, >>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> >>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>> >>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>> winter and summer! >>> >>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>> >>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>> haircuts images >>>> . >>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Henry. >>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>> >>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting >>>>> things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, >>>>> whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese >>>>> language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to >>>>> become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. >>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage >>>>> as an *a priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This >>>>> reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are >>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories >>>>> are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin >>>>> ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these >>>>> categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>> discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a >>>>> patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall >>>>> Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external >>>>> and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the >>>>> Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can >>>>>> be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors >>>>>> are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>> >>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have >>>>>>>> long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, >>>>>>>> or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions >>>>>>>> of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are >>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language >>>>>>>>> teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens >>>>>>>>> with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from >>>>>>>>> some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that >>>>>>>>> sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - >>>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion >>>>>>>>> of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before speech >>>>>>>>> was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is always >>>>>>>>> present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into >>>>>>>>> being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made >>>>>>>>> sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with >>>>>>>>> they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial >>>>>>>>> expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present >>>>>>>>> entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the >>>>>>>>> conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the >>>>>>>>> vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice >>>>>>>>> of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary >>>>>>>>> niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually >>>>>>>>> became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions >>>>>>>>> and hand movements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must >>>>>>>>> have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something >>>>>>>>> found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of >>>>>>>>> rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, >>>>>>>>> tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of >>>>>>>>> articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > 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 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/e80bb6a0/attachment-0001.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 17:13:55 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:13:55 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does /not /include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of /objective/ processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > Andy, > > My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to > be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. > > The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions > (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John > Lucy, among others), you are right. > > The charitable approach would say that linguistic > anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the > things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I > know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them > are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying > formal structures that exist in someplace called "the > mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the > greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I > know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to > say, a mere documenter of language variation across the > globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of > understanding the practical consequences of semiotic > forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes > precisely the point that you are making through his > deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a > means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than > one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach > to semiotics would suggest). > > The critical approach is nice because you can just > dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their > gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach > might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their > project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that > there might be a few who are interested, but most on the > listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the > time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy > world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that > learning the language of an entirely new system is a major > time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). > > I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to > the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you > seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How > Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a > humanist and don't like this approach for some very > fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this > position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make > the case for this position - unless you are really > genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond > your one screen rule! > > Cheers, > greg > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: > "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or > otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about > such things as psychological functioning" and > therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what > people do as well as what they think. In other words, > the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the > babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of > monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of > concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in > conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial > and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the > human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal > disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a > tool of analysis, and often insights come out from > such formal disciplines relevant to the real world > (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One > really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean > signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has > language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I > interpret the equation of language with Peircean > signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to > grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device > "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of > language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, > neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings > in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, > i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, > but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem > with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in > wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an > ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group >> for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously >> (the proliferation of technical languages in >> different fields and the time-intensive labor of >> translating terms/meanings of entire systems of >> thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add >> the fact that there are few who have much interest in >> one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. >> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a >> tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at >> all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply >> because this is an impossible situation for anyone to >> commit to learning an entirely new language for >> talking about language!).] >> >> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would >> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of >> SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the >> oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken >> word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to >> assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and >> gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way >> into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and >> iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out >> of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses >> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as >> irrelevant to his project). >> >> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of >> the first to point to the problem of this dominant >> ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has >> made a rather substantial career off of this simple >> point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on >> "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. >> Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by >> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken >> language in the concepts of "indexicality" and >> "iconization". More recently linguistic >> anthropologists have considered the processes by >> which sign-functions can shift from one function to >> another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or >> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's >> work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to >> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >> And others have looked at more basic features of >> sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia >> (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >> issue in Anthro theory). >> >> The relevance of all this for the present list serve >> is that the processes being described by these >> linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to >> understanding human psychological functioning and yet >> most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or >> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about >> such things as psychological functioning (one >> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book >> Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that >> his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I >> suspect that this could be a particularly productive >> intersection for development. >> >> Cheers, >> -greg >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >> > wrote: >> >> Right on, James! >> >>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to >>> be exploratory and free style, allowing for the >>> coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When >>> it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will >>> switch the code. >>> >>> James >>> >>> HENRY SHONERD >> > ? 2018?11?29??? >>> 18:58??? >>> >>> James, >>> This conversation has been so satisfying I >>> don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am >>> not tiring you or others with all the >>> connections I find. But, in the spirit of >>> Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking >>> and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is >>> a rich gesture, an important concept in this >>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >>> communication present in many species. >>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a >>> rudimentary form of language with >>> evolutionary results in human language. >>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >>> business of quotes in the subject line now >>> taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on >>> the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and >>> Language as an issue of gesture. Language, >>> written language in this case, is limited in >>> its ability to provide nuance. Writing >>> without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to >>> author sources familar in the day that >>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at >>> Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of >>> language where in ?tension?: 1) make >>> yourself clear and 2) get it said before >>> losing the thread of thinking and talking. >>> Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect >>> of discourse that helps to address this >>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, >>> with temporal constraints that belie the >>> idea that a single turn can ever be totally >>> clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are >>> doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on >>> posting our turns. >>> Henry >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>> this?subject line! >>>> >>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily >>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>>> have?because he has much thicker hair than >>>> most boys. Unfortunately?last year the boy >>>> had a?one-day?show off in?the classroom?and >>>> was?ticked off by?the school?authority (in >>>> China).?However,?my brother has?managed to >>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>> during?the boy's?long school holiday in >>>> winter and summer! >>>> >>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are >>>> predictable due to participants' >>>> intersubjective awareness of the subject. >>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation (just like >>>> each individual's ducktail unique?to >>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of the >>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's more, >>>> such?nuances?create the fluidity of >>>> conversation which makes it?difficult (or >>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what comes >>>> next - this is perhaps the whole point that >>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>> out?earlier. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Back at you, James. The images of the >>>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair >>>> style popularin the late 50s when I was >>>> in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>> haircuts images >>>> . >>>> One of the photos in the link is of >>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note >>>> that some of the photos are of women, >>>> interesting in light of issues of >>>> gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>> remember when women started taking on >>>> the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis >>>> Presley, this post counts as relevant >>>> to the subject line! Ha! >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought >>>>> you might like to see: >>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>> >>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and >>>>> providing it is a move on this >>>>> subject line that instantiates >>>>> nicely Gee?s conception of >>>>> discourse. Thanks for your >>>>> thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on >>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>> interesting things is his >>>>>> conception of displacement as the >>>>>> hallmark of language, whether >>>>>> iconic, indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the >>>>>> sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>> sublimated over time to become >>>>>> something more integrated into >>>>>> the words themselves as >>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's >>>>>> ideas are suggestive of the study >>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a priori >>>>>> /process, involving scrupulous >>>>>> deduction. This reminds me of >>>>>> methods used in diachronic >>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are >>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as >>>>>> those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>> "intramental", I can see your >>>>>> point. In fact I don't?take >>>>>> Vygotsky's "interpsychological" >>>>>> and "intrapsychological" >>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies or >>>>>> binary opposites. Whenever it >>>>>> comes to their relationship, I >>>>>> tend to have a post-structuralism >>>>>> imagery present in my mind, >>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any idea >>>>>> is not entirely distinct from >>>>>> other ideas in terms of the >>>>>> "thing itself"; rather, it >>>>>> entails a supplement of the other >>>>>> idea which is?already embedded in >>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>> categoriesare relational >>>>>> (dialectical); they are somehow >>>>>> like a pair of mandarin ducks >>>>>> (see attached image). I also like >>>>>> to think that each of these >>>>>> categories is both >>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>>> discourse is in tune with James >>>>>> Gee's conception of discourse as >>>>>> a patchwork of actions, >>>>>> interactions, thoughts, feelings >>>>>> etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff >>>>>> talking about there being no >>>>>> boundary between the external and >>>>>> the internal or the boundary >>>>>> being blurred (during her >>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate School of >>>>>> Education at Bristol in 2001 >>>>>> while?I was?doing my PhD). >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>> stringing together turns in >>>>>> verbal interaction. The wiki >>>>>> on Bickerton I have linked is >>>>>> short and raises issues >>>>>> discussed in this subject >>>>>> line and in the subject line >>>>>> on Corballis. Bickerton >>>>>> brings me back to the >>>>>> circularity of discourse and >>>>>> the development of discourse >>>>>> competence. Usage-based >>>>>> grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>> that complex grammar >>>>>> developed out of the pidgins >>>>>> of our ancestors is >>>>>> interesting. Do I see a >>>>>> chicken/egg problem that for >>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the intramental >>>>>> forms of semiotic mediation >>>>>> is better understood by >>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>> intermental processes?? I >>>>>> don?t know. Could one say >>>>>> that inner speech is the >>>>>> vehicle for turning discourse >>>>>> into grammar? Bickerton >>>>>> claimed a strong biological >>>>>> component to human language, >>>>>> though I don?t remember if he >>>>>> was a Chomskian. I hope this >>>>>> is coherent thinking in the >>>>>> context of our conversation. >>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, >>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg >>>>>>> - intersubjectivity is >>>>>>> relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>> intersubjectivity transcends >>>>>>> "outlines"?or perhaps >>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" >>>>>>> and "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) into >>>>>>> what Rommetveit termed?the >>>>>>> "draft of a contract". This >>>>>>> is because shared >>>>>>> understanding?makes explicit >>>>>>> and external what would >>>>>>> otherwise remain implicit >>>>>>> and internal. Rommetveit >>>>>>> argues that?private worlds >>>>>>> can only be transcended up >>>>>>> to a certain level and >>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree >>>>>>> upon?the?draft of a contract >>>>>>> with which the communication >>>>>>> can be initiated. In the >>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he uses >>>>>>> a "pluralistic" and >>>>>>> "social-cognitive" approach >>>>>>> to human communication - and >>>>>>> especially to the problem of >>>>>>> linguistic mediation and >>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>> functioning, with reference >>>>>>> to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>> the?intramental forms of >>>>>>> semiotic mediation?is better >>>>>>> understood?by examining the >>>>>>> types of intermental processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think?these intermental >>>>>>> processes (just?like >>>>>>> intramental ones) can be >>>>>>> boiled down or distilled?to >>>>>>> signs and symbols with which >>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony >>>>>>> during?a conversation or any >>>>>>> other joint activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no >>>>>>> directors and symphonic >>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>> metalogue "why do things >>>>>>> have outlines" >>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>> it raises the question >>>>>>> of units and elements, >>>>>>> of how a song, a >>>>>>> dance,?a poem, a >>>>>>> conversation, to make >>>>>>> sense, they must have a >>>>>>> recognizable outline, >>>>>>> even in improvisation; >>>>>>> they must be wholes, or >>>>>>> suggest wholes. That >>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>> "predictable".?And yet, >>>>>>> when you are immersed in >>>>>>> a conversation, the fact >>>>>>> that you can >>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>> what comes next is the >>>>>>> whole point that?keep >>>>>>> us?talking, dancing, >>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 >>>>>>> 06:22 >>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>> language and music >>>>>>> I?d like to add to the >>>>>>> call and response >>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>> conversation itself, is >>>>>>> staged. There are >>>>>>> performers and and an >>>>>>> audience made up partly >>>>>>> of performers >>>>>>> themselves. How many are >>>>>>> lurkers, as I am >>>>>>> usually? This >>>>>>> conversation has no >>>>>>> director, but there are >>>>>>> leaders. There is >>>>>>> symphonic potential. And >>>>>>> even gestural potential, >>>>>>> making the chat a dance. >>>>>>> All on line.:) >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For many years I used >>>>>>>> the work of Ellen >>>>>>>> Dissenyake to teach >>>>>>>> comm classes about >>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>> She is quite unusual in >>>>>>>> ways that might find >>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at >>>>>>>> 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, >>>>>>>> whatever each of >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> has constructed >>>>>>>> internally is the >>>>>>>> signified, i.e. his >>>>>>>> or her >>>>>>>> understanding and >>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>> vocalised (spoken >>>>>>>> out), it becomes >>>>>>>> the signifier to >>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>> What's more, when >>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>> work together to >>>>>>>> compose a story >>>>>>>> impromptu, each of >>>>>>>> their signifiers >>>>>>>> turns into a new >>>>>>>> signified ? a >>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>> fabric of meaning >>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>> Chinese language, >>>>>>>> words for singing >>>>>>>> and dancing have >>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>> inseparably. As I >>>>>>>> see it,?they are >>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>> adjusted to allow >>>>>>>> for, the feelings, >>>>>>>> emotions, actions >>>>>>>> and interactions of >>>>>>>> a consciousness who >>>>>>>> is experiencing the >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing. Here are >>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- singing and >>>>>>>> dancing rapturously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>> dancingvillage and >>>>>>>> singing club >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- citizens of >>>>>>>> ancient Yan and >>>>>>>> Zhao good at >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>> wonderful songs and >>>>>>>> dances >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????- a church or >>>>>>>> building set up for >>>>>>>> singing and dancing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 >>>>>>>> at 19:08, Simangele >>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> conversation is >>>>>>>> getting even >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>> not that I have >>>>>>>> an informed >>>>>>>> answer for you >>>>>>>> Rob, I can only >>>>>>>> think of the >>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>> Anthems where >>>>>>>> people stand >>>>>>>> still when >>>>>>>> singing, even >>>>>>>> then this is >>>>>>>> observed only >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other occasions >>>>>>>> when people are >>>>>>>> likely not to >>>>>>>> move when >>>>>>>> singing when >>>>>>>> there is death >>>>>>>> and the mood is >>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>> rhythmic body >>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>> called dance >>>>>>>> are a norm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This then makes >>>>>>>> me ?wonder what >>>>>>>> this means in >>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>> functioning, in >>>>>>>> the light of >>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>> stages ? of >>>>>>>> language and >>>>>>>> thought. Would >>>>>>>> the body >>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>> constitute the >>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>> of the thoughts >>>>>>>> contained in >>>>>>>> the music? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena ? the >>>>>>>> video you are >>>>>>>> relating about >>>>>>>> reminds of the >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> teaching or >>>>>>>> group therapy >>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>> where a group >>>>>>>> of learners (or >>>>>>>> participants in >>>>>>>> OD settings) >>>>>>>> are instructed >>>>>>>> to tell a >>>>>>>> single coherent >>>>>>>> and logical >>>>>>>> story as a >>>>>>>> group. They all >>>>>>>> take turns to >>>>>>>> say a sentence, >>>>>>>> a sentence of >>>>>>>> not more than 6 >>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>> (depending on >>>>>>>> the instructor >>>>>>>> ), each time >>>>>>>> linking your >>>>>>>> sentence to the >>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>> with the next >>>>>>>> person also >>>>>>>> doing the same, >>>>>>>> until the story >>>>>>>> sounds complete >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>> More important >>>>>>>> is that they >>>>>>>> compose this >>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>> impromptu, It >>>>>>>> with such >>>>>>>> stories that >>>>>>>> group dynamics >>>>>>>> are analysed, >>>>>>>> and in group >>>>>>>> therapy cases, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> experiences of >>>>>>>> trauma are >>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>> suppose this is >>>>>>>> an example of >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>> previously I >>>>>>>> would have >>>>>>>> thought of it >>>>>>>> as just an >>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, >>>>>>>> 16 November >>>>>>>> 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended >>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, >>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>>> Michael C. >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>> being told once >>>>>>>> that many >>>>>>>> languages do >>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>> separate words >>>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>> because if you >>>>>>>> sing you want >>>>>>>> to move - until >>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>> beats it out of >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody >>>>>>>> know if this is >>>>>>>> actually true, >>>>>>>> or is it >>>>>>>> complete cod? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it is true, >>>>>>>> does it have >>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>> say about the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> physical body >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> development of >>>>>>>> speech? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 17:29, Helena >>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> in where >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> is going. I >>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>> being in a >>>>>>>> Theories of >>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>> class in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>> Hull, the >>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>> showed a >>>>>>>> video of a >>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>> where an >>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>> pattern of >>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>> wove in and >>>>>>>> out among >>>>>>>> the singers >>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>> by drumming >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>> you name >>>>>>>> it. Maybe >>>>>>>> 20 people >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>> all pushing >>>>>>>> full steam >>>>>>>> ahead to >>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>> all seemed >>>>>>>> to know >>>>>>>> about but >>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>> until they >>>>>>>> did it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>> someone has >>>>>>>> studied the >>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>> of musical >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>> speech and >>>>>>>> gesture? I >>>>>>>> have asked >>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>> and get >>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>> looks. Yet >>>>>>>> clearly you >>>>>>>> can tell >>>>>>>> when you >>>>>>>> listen to >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> kinds of >>>>>>>> music, not >>>>>>>> just Amazon >>>>>>>> drum and >>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>> that there >>>>>>>> is some >>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>> speech - >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>> there. The >>>>>>>> Sonata form >>>>>>>> is clearly >>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>> (they even >>>>>>>> use that >>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>> to the Coen >>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>> film Fargo >>>>>>>> opens with >>>>>>>> a musical >>>>>>>> theme that >>>>>>>> says, as >>>>>>>> clearly as >>>>>>>> if we were >>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>> aloud from >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>> book, ?I am >>>>>>>> now going >>>>>>>> to tell you >>>>>>>> a very >>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>> story that >>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> promise you >>>>>>>> every word >>>>>>>> of it is >>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>> Only it >>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>> many words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (18) Fargo >>>>>>>> (1996) - >>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>> [1080] - >>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>> CA 94707 >>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blog US/ >>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at 8:56 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> and Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>> a lot. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> art. In >>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> is this >>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> work is >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>> a work >>>>>>>> of art. >>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>> ?at the >>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>> or just >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>> when we >>>>>>>> give up >>>>>>>> on dialog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>> this, I >>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>> one can >>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> is intended for >>>>>>>> the addressee >>>>>>>> only. It is >>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>> If you have >>>>>>>> received this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>> please notify >>>>>>>> us immediately >>>>>>>> and destroy the >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>> message. You >>>>>>>> may not copy or >>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> without the >>>>>>>> permission of >>>>>>>> the University. >>>>>>>> Only authorised >>>>>>>> signatories are >>>>>>>> competent to >>>>>>>> enter into >>>>>>>> agreements on >>>>>>>> behalf of the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> recipients are >>>>>>>> thus advised >>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>> content of this >>>>>>>> message may not >>>>>>>> be legally >>>>>>>> binding on the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> may contain the >>>>>>>> personal views >>>>>>>> and opinions of >>>>>>>> the author, >>>>>>>> which are not >>>>>>>> necessarily the >>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>> opinions of The >>>>>>>> University of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>> All agreements >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> University and >>>>>>>> outsiders are >>>>>>>> subject to >>>>>>>> South African >>>>>>>> Law unless the >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>> writing to the >>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/f0e7e1f1/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Sun Dec 2 17:20:58 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:20:58 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: <2F941E6E-E50A-4D38-B18D-D1AE3DDBBB4A@cantab.net> Andy! I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then, that there really is a second candle behind the mirror? Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) > On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does not include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of objective processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. > The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: >> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean signs is an entirely formal project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. >> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >> >> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very relevant answers. >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>> Right on, James! >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> James, >>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts images . One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an a priori process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>> James, >>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton ) who argued that ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, etc! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>>>>> Sent: 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might find interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed only in international events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - YouTube >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of language in the senses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only cooperation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came into being, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human development. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it for speech. Clearly there was rudimentary language before speech was humanly possible. In development, a behaviour is always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/c32c1cdc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 17:25:30 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:25:30 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <2F941E6E-E50A-4D38-B18D-D1AE3DDBBB4A@cantab.net> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <2F941E6E-E50A-4D38-B18D-D1AE3DDBBB4A@cantab.net> Message-ID: Ha, ha! No, I don't Martin. But I thought Vygotsky's arguments in "Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour" were pretty sound. https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/consciousness.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 12:20 pm, Martin Packer wrote: > Andy! > > I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then, > that there really is a second candle behind the mirror? > > Martin > > /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. > Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, > I?become at?once?aware that my partner does not understand > anything in the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling > that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ > > > >> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly >> behind the game! :) Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in >> that it does /not /include the category of Subject in its >> triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means >> that it can be used for the analysis of /objective/ >> processes. When used in this way it does not imply >> "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was >> the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech >> and gesture has a subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your very >> erudite response is that I think we should not be too >> apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind >> is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >> we deduce the state of minds from the observable >> behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human >> behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption >> that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we >> become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer >>> to be critical or charitable toward linguistic >>> anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a few >>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth >>> Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic >>> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the >>> things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that >>> I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of >>> them are grappling with issues of practice, not just >>> studying formal structures that exist in someplace >>> called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one >>> of the greatest insults to the linguistic >>> anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly >>> collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of >>> language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I >>> know are in fact very mindful of understanding the >>> practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book >>> Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point >>> that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to >>> Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping >>> semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists >>> only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics >>> would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you can just >>> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their >>> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable >>> approach might suggest that we should at least >>> acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to >>> do. I figured that there might be a few who are >>> interested, but most on the listserve will find that it >>> wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame >>> them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm >>> very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of >>> an entirely new system is a major time commitment and >>> only worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to >>> the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you >>> seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How >>> Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a >>> humanist and don't like this approach for some very >>> fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this >>> position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make >>> the case for this position - unless you are really >>> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well >>> beyond your one screen rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: >>> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about >>> such things as psychological functioning" and >>> therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what >>> people do as well as what they think. In other >>> words, the turn to seeing language as a system of >>> Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, >>> the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of >>> monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set >>> of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in >>> conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial >>> and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the >>> human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such formal >>> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be >>> a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from >>> such formal disciplines relevant to the real world >>> (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! >>> One really has to keep in mind that words are not >>> Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is >>> that humans alone have language by saying that >>> everything has language, even inanimate processes >>> (and this is how I interpret the equation of >>> language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than >>> missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to >>> grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device >>> "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of >>> language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, >>> neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human >>> beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of >>> biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is >>> a problem with this formal analysis, even though I >>> gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask >>> it and deliver very relevant answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group >>>> for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned >>>> previously (the proliferation of technical >>>> languages in different fields and the >>>> time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings >>>> of entire systems of thinking from one of these >>>> fields to the next). Add the fact that there are >>>> few who have much interest in one of the field of >>>> linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro >>>> has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words >>>> in its own right), and this means the following >>>> post will likely remain an orphan (not at all >>>> because of anyone's ill intentions but simply >>>> because this is an impossible situation for anyone >>>> to commit to learning an entirely new language for >>>> talking about language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would >>>> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of >>>> SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the >>>> oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken >>>> word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to >>>> assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and >>>> gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's >>>> notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us >>>> a way into seeing how spoken language is also >>>> indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who >>>> dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he >>>> dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" >>>> (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one >>>> of the first to point to the problem of this >>>> dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career >>>> off of this simple point, first elaborated in his >>>> famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>>> numerous other works. Many others working in >>>> linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 >>>> years expanding on this project by exploring the >>>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in >>>> the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". >>>> More recently linguistic anthropologists have >>>> considered the processes by which sign-functions >>>> can shift from one function to another - e.g., >>>> rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and >>>> iconization - from symbolic or iconic to >>>> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>>> And others have looked at more basic features of >>>> sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia >>>> (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>>> issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the present list >>>> serve is that the processes being described by >>>> these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to >>>> understanding human psychological functioning and >>>> yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic >>>> or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking >>>> about such things as psychological functioning (one >>>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book >>>> Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that >>>> his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, >>>> I suspect that this could be a particularly >>>> productive intersection for development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion >>>>> to be exploratory and free style, allowing for >>>>> the coexistence of subjectness and >>>>> subjectless. When it comes to scholarly >>>>> writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? 2018?11?29??? >>>>> 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I >>>>> don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am >>>>> not tiring you or others with all the >>>>> connections I find. But, in the spirit of >>>>> Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking >>>>> and remark on how the duck tail hair cut >>>>> is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >>>>> communication present in many species. >>>>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a >>>>> rudimentary form of language with >>>>> evolutionary results in human language. >>>>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >>>>> business of quotes in the subject line now >>>>> taking place (Anna Stetsenko and >>>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing >>>>> right now) on the last chapter of >>>>> Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue >>>>> of gesture. Language, written language in >>>>> this case, is limited in its ability to >>>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes >>>>> ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources >>>>> familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, >>>>> such that quotes were not necessary. Dan >>>>> Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, >>>>> wrote that two charges of language where >>>>> in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and >>>>> 2) get it said before losing the thread of >>>>> thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse >>>>> that helps to address this tension. A turn >>>>> (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal >>>>> constraints that belie the idea that a >>>>> single turn can ever be totally clear in >>>>> and of itself. Writing, as we are doing >>>>> now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep >>>>> on posting our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>>>> this?subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. >>>>>> Funnily enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>>>>> have?because he has much thicker hair >>>>>> than most boys. Unfortunately?last year >>>>>> the boy had a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off by?the >>>>>> school?authority (in China).?However,?my >>>>>> brother has?managed to >>>>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>>>> during?the boy's?long school holiday in >>>>>> winter and summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation >>>>>> are predictable due to participants' >>>>>> intersubjective awareness of the subject. >>>>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation (just >>>>>> like each individual's ducktail unique?to >>>>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of the >>>>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's more, >>>>>> such?nuances?create the fluidity of >>>>>> conversation which makes it?difficult (or >>>>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what comes >>>>>> next - this is perhaps the whole point >>>>>> that keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>>>> out?earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY >>>>>> SHONERD >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the >>>>>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair >>>>>> style popularin the late 50s when I >>>>>> was in high school (grades 9-12): >>>>>> ducktail haircuts images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of >>>>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note >>>>>> that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of issues of >>>>>> gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>> remember when women started taking on >>>>>> the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as >>>>>> relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James >>>>>>> Ma >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought >>>>>>> you might like to see: >>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> > ? >>>>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, >>>>>>> and providing it is a move on >>>>>>> this subject line that >>>>>>> instantiates nicely Gee?s >>>>>>> conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful >>>>>>> response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, >>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on >>>>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>>> interesting things is his >>>>>>>> conception of displacement as >>>>>>>> the hallmark of language, >>>>>>>> whether iconic, indexical or >>>>>>>> symbolic. In the case of >>>>>>>> Chinese language, the sounds >>>>>>>> are decontextualised or >>>>>>>> sublimated over time to become >>>>>>>> something more integrated into >>>>>>>> the words themselves as >>>>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's >>>>>>>> ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an /a >>>>>>>> priori /process, involving >>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This >>>>>>>> reminds me of methods used in >>>>>>>> diachronic linguistics, which I >>>>>>>> felt are relevant to CHAT just >>>>>>>> as much as those used in >>>>>>>> synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>>>> "intramental", I can see your >>>>>>>> point. In fact I don't?take >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's "interpsychological" >>>>>>>> and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies or >>>>>>>> binary opposites. Whenever it >>>>>>>> comes to their relationship, I >>>>>>>> tend to have a >>>>>>>> post-structuralism imagery >>>>>>>> present in my mind, >>>>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any >>>>>>>> idea is not entirely distinct >>>>>>>> from other ideas in terms of >>>>>>>> the "thing itself"; rather, it >>>>>>>> entails a supplement of the >>>>>>>> other idea which is?already >>>>>>>> embedded in the self). >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's two categoriesare >>>>>>>> relational (dialectical); they >>>>>>>> are somehow like a pair of >>>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see attached >>>>>>>> image). I also like to think >>>>>>>> that each of these categories >>>>>>>> is both "discourse-in-context" >>>>>>>> and "context-for-discourse" >>>>>>>> (here discourse is in tune with >>>>>>>> James Gee's conception of >>>>>>>> discourse as a patchwork of >>>>>>>> actions, interactions, >>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings etc). I >>>>>>>> recall Barbara Rogoff talking >>>>>>>> about there being no boundary >>>>>>>> between the external and the >>>>>>>> internal or the boundary being >>>>>>>> blurred (during her >>>>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate School >>>>>>>> of Education at Bristol in 2001 >>>>>>>> while?I was?doing my PhD). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, >>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>>>> stringing together turns in >>>>>>>> verbal interaction. The >>>>>>>> wiki on Bickerton I have >>>>>>>> linked is short and raises >>>>>>>> issues discussed in this >>>>>>>> subject line and in the >>>>>>>> subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to >>>>>>>> the circularity of >>>>>>>> discourse and the >>>>>>>> development of discourse >>>>>>>> competence. Usage-based >>>>>>>> grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>> that complex grammar >>>>>>>> developed out of the >>>>>>>> pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a >>>>>>>> chicken/egg problem that >>>>>>>> for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>> intramental forms of >>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is >>>>>>>> better understood by >>>>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>>>> intermental processes?? I >>>>>>>> don?t know. Could one say >>>>>>>> that inner speech is the >>>>>>>> vehicle for turning >>>>>>>> discourse into grammar? >>>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a strong >>>>>>>> biological component to >>>>>>>> human language, though I >>>>>>>> don?t remember if he was a >>>>>>>> Chomskian. I hope this is >>>>>>>> coherent thinking in the >>>>>>>> context of our >>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 >>>>>>>>> PM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with >>>>>>>>> Greg - intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> is relevant and pertinent >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> transcends "outlines"?or >>>>>>>>> perhaps sublimates the >>>>>>>>> "muddledness" and >>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) into >>>>>>>>> what Rommetveit termed?the >>>>>>>>> "draft of a contract". >>>>>>>>> This is because shared >>>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>>> explicit and external what >>>>>>>>> would otherwise remain >>>>>>>>> implicit and internal. >>>>>>>>> Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>>> that?private worlds can >>>>>>>>> only be transcended up to >>>>>>>>> a certain level and >>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to >>>>>>>>> agree upon?the?draft of a >>>>>>>>> contract with which the >>>>>>>>> communication can be >>>>>>>>> initiated. In the spirit >>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and >>>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>>> approach to human >>>>>>>>> communication - and >>>>>>>>> especially to the problem >>>>>>>>> of linguistic mediation >>>>>>>>> and regulation in >>>>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>>>> functioning, with >>>>>>>>> reference to semantics, >>>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>>>> the?intramental forms of >>>>>>>>> semiotic mediation?is >>>>>>>>> better understood?by >>>>>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>>>>> intermental processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think?these intermental >>>>>>>>> processes (just?like >>>>>>>>> intramental ones) can be >>>>>>>>> boiled down or >>>>>>>>> distilled?to signs and >>>>>>>>> symbols with which >>>>>>>>> interlocutors are in >>>>>>>>> harmony during?a >>>>>>>>> conversation or any other >>>>>>>>> joint activities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about >>>>>>>>> no directors and >>>>>>>>> symphonic potential?of >>>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>>> metalogue "why do >>>>>>>>> things have outlines" >>>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>>> it raises the question >>>>>>>>> of units and elements, >>>>>>>>> of how a song, a >>>>>>>>> dance,?a poem, a >>>>>>>>> conversation, to make >>>>>>>>> sense, they must have >>>>>>>>> a recognizable >>>>>>>>> outline, even in >>>>>>>>> improvisation; they >>>>>>>>> must be wholes, or >>>>>>>>> suggest wholes. That >>>>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>>> yet, when you are >>>>>>>>> immersed in a >>>>>>>>> conversation, the fact >>>>>>>>> that you can >>>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>>> what comes next is the >>>>>>>>> whole point that?keep >>>>>>>>> us?talking, dancing, >>>>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November >>>>>>>>> 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>> Re: language and music >>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the >>>>>>>>> call and response >>>>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>>>> conversation itself, >>>>>>>>> is staged. There are >>>>>>>>> performers and and an >>>>>>>>> audience made up >>>>>>>>> partly of performers >>>>>>>>> themselves. How many >>>>>>>>> are lurkers, as I am >>>>>>>>> usually? This >>>>>>>>> conversation has no >>>>>>>>> director, but there >>>>>>>>> are leaders. There is >>>>>>>>> symphonic potential. >>>>>>>>> And even gestural >>>>>>>>> potential, making the >>>>>>>>> chat a dance. All on >>>>>>>>> line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at >>>>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For many years I used >>>>>>>>>> the work of Ellen >>>>>>>>>> Dissenyake to teach >>>>>>>>>> comm classes about >>>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>>> She is quite unusual >>>>>>>>>> in ways that might >>>>>>>>>> find interest here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In semiotic >>>>>>>>>> terms, whatever >>>>>>>>>> each of the >>>>>>>>>> participants has >>>>>>>>>> constructed >>>>>>>>>> internally is the >>>>>>>>>> signified, i.e. >>>>>>>>>> his or her >>>>>>>>>> understanding and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>>>> vocalised (spoken >>>>>>>>>> out), it becomes >>>>>>>>>> the signifier to >>>>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>>>> What's more, when >>>>>>>>>> the participants >>>>>>>>>> work together to >>>>>>>>>> compose a story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, each >>>>>>>>>> of their >>>>>>>>>> signifiers turns >>>>>>>>>> into a new >>>>>>>>>> signified ? a >>>>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning >>>>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>>>> Chinese language, >>>>>>>>>> words for singing >>>>>>>>>> and dancing have >>>>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>>>> inseparably. As I >>>>>>>>>> see it,?they are >>>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>>>> adjusted to allow >>>>>>>>>> for, the >>>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>>> emotions, actions >>>>>>>>>> and interactions >>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> consciousness who >>>>>>>>>> is experiencing >>>>>>>>>> the singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are >>>>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>>> and singing club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- citizens of >>>>>>>>>> ancient Yan and >>>>>>>>>> Zhao good at >>>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>>>> wonderful songs >>>>>>>>>> and dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- a church or >>>>>>>>>> building set up >>>>>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov >>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 19:08, >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is getting >>>>>>>>>> even more >>>>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>>>> not that I >>>>>>>>>> have an >>>>>>>>>> informed >>>>>>>>>> answer for >>>>>>>>>> you Rob, I >>>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>>> think of the >>>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>>> Anthems where >>>>>>>>>> people stand >>>>>>>>>> still when >>>>>>>>>> singing, even >>>>>>>>>> then this is >>>>>>>>>> observed only >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>>>>> when people >>>>>>>>>> are likely >>>>>>>>>> not to move >>>>>>>>>> when singing >>>>>>>>>> when there is >>>>>>>>>> death and the >>>>>>>>>> mood is >>>>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>>> rhythmic body >>>>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>>>> called dance >>>>>>>>>> are a norm. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This then >>>>>>>>>> makes me >>>>>>>>>> ?wonder what >>>>>>>>>> this means in >>>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>>> in the light >>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>>>> stages ? of >>>>>>>>>> language and >>>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>>> Would the >>>>>>>>>> body movement >>>>>>>>>> constitute >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>>>> contained in >>>>>>>>>> the music? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the >>>>>>>>>> video you are >>>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>>> about reminds >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> teaching or >>>>>>>>>> group therapy >>>>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>>>> where a group >>>>>>>>>> of learners >>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> in OD >>>>>>>>>> settings) are >>>>>>>>>> instructed to >>>>>>>>>> tell a single >>>>>>>>>> coherent and >>>>>>>>>> logical story >>>>>>>>>> as a group. >>>>>>>>>> They all take >>>>>>>>>> turns to say >>>>>>>>>> a sentence, a >>>>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>>>> not more than >>>>>>>>>> 6 words >>>>>>>>>> (depending on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> instructor ), >>>>>>>>>> each time >>>>>>>>>> linking your >>>>>>>>>> sentence to >>>>>>>>>> the sentence >>>>>>>>>> of previous >>>>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>>>> with the next >>>>>>>>>> person also >>>>>>>>>> doing the >>>>>>>>>> same, until >>>>>>>>>> the story >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> complete with >>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>>>> More >>>>>>>>>> important is >>>>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>>>> compose this >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, It >>>>>>>>>> with such >>>>>>>>>> stories that >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> dynamics are >>>>>>>>>> analysed, and >>>>>>>>>> in group >>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>> cases, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>>>>> of trauma are >>>>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>>>> suppose this >>>>>>>>>> is an example >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>>> previously I >>>>>>>>>> would have >>>>>>>>>> thought of it >>>>>>>>>> as just an >>>>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of >>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* >>>>>>>>>> Friday, 16 >>>>>>>>>> November 2018 >>>>>>>>>> 21:01 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>>>>> Michael C. >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>>>> being told >>>>>>>>>> once that >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> languages do >>>>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>> words for >>>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>> because if >>>>>>>>>> you sing you >>>>>>>>>> want to move >>>>>>>>>> - until >>>>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>>>> beats it out >>>>>>>>>> of you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does anybody >>>>>>>>>> know if this >>>>>>>>>> is actually >>>>>>>>>> true, or is >>>>>>>>>> it complete cod? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it is >>>>>>>>>> true, does it >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>>>> say about the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>>>> physical body >>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of speech? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 17:29, Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am very >>>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>>> in where >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is going. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> being in >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> Theories >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>>>> class in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>>>> Hull, the >>>>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>>>> showed a >>>>>>>>>> video of >>>>>>>>>> a singing >>>>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>>>> where an >>>>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>>>> wove in >>>>>>>>>> and out >>>>>>>>>> among the >>>>>>>>>> singers >>>>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> drumming >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>>>> you name >>>>>>>>>> it. Maybe >>>>>>>>>> 20 people >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>>>> ahead to >>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>> that they >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> seemed to >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> about but >>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> they did it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> studied >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture? >>>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> this and >>>>>>>>>> get blank >>>>>>>>>> looks. >>>>>>>>>> Yet >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>>> tell when >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> listen to >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> kinds of >>>>>>>>>> music, >>>>>>>>>> not just >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> drum and >>>>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>> some kind >>>>>>>>>> of speech >>>>>>>>>> - like >>>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> Sonata >>>>>>>>>> form is >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>>>> (they >>>>>>>>>> even use >>>>>>>>>> that word). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>> Coen >>>>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> opens >>>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> theme >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> says, as >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> as if we >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>>> aloud >>>>>>>>>> from some >>>>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>>>> book, ?I >>>>>>>>>> am now >>>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>>> tell you >>>>>>>>>> a very >>>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>>> you every >>>>>>>>>> word of >>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>>>> Only it >>>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>> many words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (18) >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> (1996) - >>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>>>> [1080] - >>>>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>>>> CA 94707 >>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ >>>>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:56 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>>>> ?at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>> up on >>>>>>>>>> dialog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is intended >>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>> addressee >>>>>>>>>> only. It is >>>>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>>>> If you have >>>>>>>>>> received this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>>>> please notify >>>>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>>> and destroy >>>>>>>>>> the original >>>>>>>>>> message. You >>>>>>>>>> may not copy >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> without the >>>>>>>>>> permission of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University. >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>>>>> signatories >>>>>>>>>> are competent >>>>>>>>>> to enter into >>>>>>>>>> agreements on >>>>>>>>>> behalf of the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> recipients >>>>>>>>>> are thus >>>>>>>>>> advised that >>>>>>>>>> the content >>>>>>>>>> of this >>>>>>>>>> message may >>>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>>> legally >>>>>>>>>> binding on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and may >>>>>>>>>> contain the >>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>>>> opinions of >>>>>>>>>> the author, >>>>>>>>>> which are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily >>>>>>>>>> the views and >>>>>>>>>> opinions of >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> University of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and outsiders >>>>>>>>>> are subject >>>>>>>>>> to South >>>>>>>>>> African Law >>>>>>>>>> unless the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>>>> writing to >>>>>>>>>> the contrary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> >>>> 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 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/0290c586/attachment-0001.html From mpacker@cantab.net Sun Dec 2 17:36:13 2018 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <2F941E6E-E50A-4D38-B18D-D1AE3DDBBB4A@cantab.net> Message-ID: Sound indeed. And you?ll have no bother from me if you?re equating mind with consciousness. After all, a dictionary definition of mind is "the faculty of consciousness and thought.? Unfortunately, as you know, psychology generally treats mind not as consciousness, but as an inner realm of mental representations, most of which a person is not conscious of. As LSV wrote, "This is the other half of the old dualism: then there is a mind without behaviour, here ? behaviour without mind; in both cases mind and behaviour are understood as two different phenomena" Martin > On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Ha, ha! No, I don't Martin. But I thought Vygotsky's arguments in "Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour" were pretty sound. > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/consciousness.htm > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 12:20 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >> Andy! >> >> I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then, that there really is a second candle behind the mirror? >> >> Martin >> >> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >> >> >> >>> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. >>> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does not include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of objective processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >>> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> Andy, >>>> >>>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >>>> >>>> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. >>>> >>>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). >>>> >>>> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >>>> >>>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen rule! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> greg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean signs is an entirely formal project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. >>>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>>> >>>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very relevant answers. >>>> Andy >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] >>>>> >>>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>>> >>>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). >>>>> >>>>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -greg >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>> Right on, James! >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>>> James, >>>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts images . One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an a priori process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton ) who argued that ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, etc! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might find interest here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? <> - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? <> - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed only in international events. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >; Helena Worthen > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came into being, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human development. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it for speech. Clearly there was rudimentary language before speech was humanly possible. In development, a behaviour is always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>>> 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 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/174d7d37/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 17:51:57 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:51:57 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <2F941E6E-E50A-4D38-B18D-D1AE3DDBBB4A@cantab.net> Message-ID: Fully agreed, Martin. Grammatically, "consciousness" is a funny word though, isn't it. The "-ness" suffix implies that "consciousness" is an attribute but we use it as if it were a mass noun. But in the present context, what we are talking about, mind, is a countable noun, as in: "a conversation engages many minds," and "that was not not what was on my mind." So using the word "mind" allows us to reference consciousness in its individual existence, without any implication of mental objects existing within minds (second candles) or Jungian collective consciousness. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 12:36 pm, Martin Packer wrote: > Sound indeed. And you?ll have no bother from me if you?re > equating mind with consciousness. After all, a dictionary > definition of mind is "the faculty of consciousness and > thought.? ?Unfortunately, as you know, psychology > generally treats mind not as consciousness, but as an > inner realm of mental representations, most of which a > person is not conscious of. > > As LSV wrote, "This is the other half of the old dualism: > then there is a?mind without behaviour, here ? > behaviour?without?mind; in both cases mind and behaviour > are?understood as two different phenomena" > > Martin > > >> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Ha, ha! No, I don't Martin. But I thought Vygotsky's >> arguments in "Consciousness as a problem in the >> psychology of behaviour" were pretty sound. >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/consciousness.htm >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 12:20 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>> Andy! >>> >>> I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then, >>> that there really is a second candle behind the mirror? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. >>> Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or >>> Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware that my partner does not >>> understand anything in the matter, and I end >>> usually?with the?feeling that this also applies to >>> myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly >>>> behind the game! :) Thank you. >>>> >>>> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in >>>> that it does /not /include the category of Subject in >>>> its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This >>>> means that it can be used for the analysis of >>>> /objective/ processes. When used in this way it does >>>> not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's >>>> semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's >>>> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >>>> >>>> The other minor point I would make about your very >>>> erudite response is that I think we should not be too >>>> apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, >>>> mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human >>>> interactions we deduce the state of minds from the >>>> observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or >>>> everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without >>>> the presumption that it is mindful to this or that >>>> extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky >>>> would murder us! :) >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>>> Andy, >>>>> >>>>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer >>>>> to be critical or charitable toward linguistic >>>>> anthropologists. >>>>> >>>>> The critical approach would say that with a few >>>>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, >>>>> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. >>>>> >>>>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic >>>>> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the >>>>> things that you are talking about. Most of the ones >>>>> that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. >>>>> Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, >>>>> not just studying formal structures that exist in >>>>> someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). >>>>> In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic >>>>> anthropologists that I know is to call them a >>>>> "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >>>>> documenter of language variation across the globe. >>>>> Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of >>>>> understanding the practical consequences of semiotic >>>>> forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes >>>>> precisely the point that you are making through his >>>>> deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce >>>>> offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived >>>>> practice rather than one that exists only in the >>>>> "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would >>>>> suggest). >>>>> >>>>> The critical approach is nice because you can just >>>>> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their >>>>> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable >>>>> approach might suggest that we should at least >>>>> acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to >>>>> do. I figured that there might be a few who are >>>>> interested, but most on the listserve will find that >>>>> it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame >>>>> them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm >>>>> very sensitive to the fact that learning the language >>>>> of an entirely new system is a major time commitment >>>>> and only worth it in rare cases). >>>>> >>>>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get >>>>> to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that >>>>> you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book >>>>> How Forests Think). I understand that you are very >>>>> much a humanist and don't like this approach for some >>>>> very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed >>>>> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best >>>>> person to make the case for this position - unless you >>>>> are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm >>>>> already well beyond your one screen rule! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> greg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: >>>>> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>>>> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking >>>>> about such things as psychological functioning" >>>>> and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in >>>>> what people do as well as what they think. In >>>>> other words, the turn to seeing language as a >>>>> system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* >>>>> project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the >>>>> babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally >>>>> analysed with the same set of concepts as the >>>>> babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>>>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures >>>>> what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. >>>>> >>>>> I can understand the fascination in such formal >>>>> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can >>>>> be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out >>>>> from such formal disciplines relevant to the real >>>>> world (mathematics being the supreme example), but >>>>> ....! One really has to keep in mind that words >>>>> are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of >>>>> how it is that humans alone have language by >>>>> saying that everything has language, even >>>>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret >>>>> the equation of language with Peircean signs), is >>>>> somewhat more than missing the point. >>>>> >>>>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to >>>>> grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device >>>>> "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of >>>>> language. And yet to hold that an actual >>>>> biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in >>>>> all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>>>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. >>>>> Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which >>>>> tells me that there is a problem with this formal >>>>> analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time >>>>> Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary >>>>> language question I ask it and deliver very >>>>> relevant answers. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this >>>>>> group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned >>>>>> previously (the proliferation of technical >>>>>> languages in different fields and the >>>>>> time-intensive labor of translating >>>>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from >>>>>> one of these fields to the next). Add the fact >>>>>> that there are few who have much interest in one >>>>>> of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. >>>>>> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - >>>>>> a tangle of words in its own right), and this >>>>>> means the following post will likely remain an >>>>>> orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill >>>>>> intentions but simply because this is an >>>>>> impossible situation for anyone to commit to >>>>>> learning an entirely new language for talking >>>>>> about language!).] >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would >>>>>> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials >>>>>> of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>>>>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture >>>>>> and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of >>>>>> language tends to assume that spoken language is >>>>>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical >>>>>> and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and >>>>>> iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how >>>>>> spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as >>>>>> opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of >>>>>> hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses >>>>>> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) >>>>>> as irrelevant to his project). >>>>>> >>>>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one >>>>>> of the first to point to the problem of this >>>>>> dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>>>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career >>>>>> off of this simple point, first elaborated in his >>>>>> famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>>>>> numerous other works. Many others working in >>>>>> linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 >>>>>> years expanding on this project by exploring the >>>>>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in >>>>>> the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". >>>>>> More recently linguistic anthropologists have >>>>>> considered the processes by which sign-functions >>>>>> can shift from one function to another - e.g., >>>>>> rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>>>>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), >>>>>> and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to >>>>>> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's >>>>>> work). And others have looked at more basic >>>>>> features of sign-functioning such as the >>>>>> realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and >>>>>> Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevance of all this for the present list >>>>>> serve is that the processes being described by >>>>>> these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental >>>>>> to understanding human psychological functioning >>>>>> and yet most of the anthropologists I know, >>>>>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>>>>> in talking about such things as psychological >>>>>> functioning (one exception here is Paul >>>>>> Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, >>>>>> Subject, Self - although beware that his writing >>>>>> is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect >>>>>> that this could be a particularly productive >>>>>> intersection for development. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> -greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Right on, James! >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion >>>>>>> to be exploratory and free style, allowing >>>>>>> for the coexistence of subjectness and >>>>>>> subjectless. When it comes to scholarly >>>>>>> writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> > ? >>>>>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James, >>>>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying >>>>>>> I don?t want to let go of it, so I hope >>>>>>> I am not tiring you or others with all >>>>>>> the connections I find. But, in the >>>>>>> spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep >>>>>>> on talking and remark on how the duck >>>>>>> tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an >>>>>>> important concept in this subject line. >>>>>>> Gesture is an aspect of communication >>>>>>> present in many species. Hence, the >>>>>>> importance of gesture as a rudimentary >>>>>>> form of language with evolutionary >>>>>>> results in human language. Maybe this is >>>>>>> a reach, but I see the business of >>>>>>> quotes in the subject line now taking >>>>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >>>>>>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) >>>>>>> on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech >>>>>>> and Language as an issue of gesture. >>>>>>> Language, written language in this case, >>>>>>> is limited in its ability to provide >>>>>>> nuance. Writing without quotes >>>>>>> ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources >>>>>>> familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, >>>>>>> such that quotes were not necessary. Dan >>>>>>> Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, >>>>>>> wrote that two charges of language where >>>>>>> in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and >>>>>>> 2) get it said before losing the thread >>>>>>> of thinking and talking. Gesture, I >>>>>>> would like to argue, is an aspect of >>>>>>> discourse that helps to address this >>>>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a >>>>>>> gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can >>>>>>> ever be totally clear in and of itself. >>>>>>> Writing, as we are doing now, is always >>>>>>> dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn >>>>>>> in discourse. And we keep on posting our >>>>>>> turns. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>>>>>> this?subject line! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. >>>>>>>> Funnily enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>>>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son to >>>>>>>> have?because he has much thicker hair >>>>>>>> than most boys. Unfortunately?last year >>>>>>>> the boy had a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off by?the >>>>>>>> school?authority (in >>>>>>>> China).?However,?my brother has?managed >>>>>>>> to restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>>>>>> during?the boy's?long school holiday in >>>>>>>> winter and summer! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation >>>>>>>> are predictable due to participants' >>>>>>>> intersubjective awareness of the >>>>>>>> subject. Yet,?the nuances of >>>>>>>> conversation (just like each >>>>>>>> individual's ducktail unique?to >>>>>>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of >>>>>>>> the waywardness of?our mind. What's >>>>>>>> more, such?nuances?create the fluidity >>>>>>>> of conversation which makes >>>>>>>> it?difficult (or even?unnecessary) >>>>>>>> to?predict?what comes next - this is >>>>>>>> perhaps the whole point that >>>>>>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>>>>>> out?earlier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of >>>>>>>> the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>>>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s >>>>>>>> when I was in high school (grades >>>>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts images >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of >>>>>>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note >>>>>>>> that some of the photos are of >>>>>>>> women, interesting in light of >>>>>>>> issues of gender fluidity these >>>>>>>> days. I don?t remember when women >>>>>>>> started taking on the hair style. >>>>>>>> Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, >>>>>>>> this post counts as relevant to the >>>>>>>> subject line! Ha! >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James >>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just >>>>>>>>> thought you might like to see: >>>>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> > ? >>>>>>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, >>>>>>>>> and providing it is a move on >>>>>>>>> this subject line that >>>>>>>>> instantiates nicely Gee?s >>>>>>>>> conception of discourse. >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your thoughtful and >>>>>>>>> helpful response. >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, >>>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on >>>>>>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>>>>> interesting things is his >>>>>>>>>> conception of displacement as >>>>>>>>>> the hallmark of language, >>>>>>>>>> whether iconic, indexical or >>>>>>>>>> symbolic. In the case of >>>>>>>>>> Chinese language, the sounds >>>>>>>>>> are decontextualised or >>>>>>>>>> sublimated over time to >>>>>>>>>> become something more >>>>>>>>>> integrated into the words >>>>>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. >>>>>>>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are >>>>>>>>>> suggestive of the study of >>>>>>>>>> protolanguage as an /a priori >>>>>>>>>> /process, involving >>>>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This >>>>>>>>>> reminds me of methods used in >>>>>>>>>> diachronic linguistics, which >>>>>>>>>> I felt are relevant to CHAT >>>>>>>>>> just as much as those used in >>>>>>>>>> synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>>>>>> "intramental", I can see your >>>>>>>>>> point. In fact I don't?take >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>>> "interpsychological" and >>>>>>>>>> "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies >>>>>>>>>> or binary opposites. Whenever >>>>>>>>>> it comes to their >>>>>>>>>> relationship, I tend to have >>>>>>>>>> a post-structuralism imagery >>>>>>>>>> present in my mind, >>>>>>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any >>>>>>>>>> idea is not entirely distinct >>>>>>>>>> from other ideas in terms of >>>>>>>>>> the "thing itself"; rather, >>>>>>>>>> it entails a supplement of >>>>>>>>>> the other idea which >>>>>>>>>> is?already embedded in the >>>>>>>>>> self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>>>>> categoriesare relational >>>>>>>>>> (dialectical); they are >>>>>>>>>> somehow like a pair of >>>>>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see attached >>>>>>>>>> image). I also like to think >>>>>>>>>> that each of these categories >>>>>>>>>> is both >>>>>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here >>>>>>>>>> discourse is in tune with >>>>>>>>>> James Gee's conception of >>>>>>>>>> discourse as a patchwork of >>>>>>>>>> actions, interactions, >>>>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings etc). I >>>>>>>>>> recall Barbara Rogoff talking >>>>>>>>>> about there being no boundary >>>>>>>>>> between the external and the >>>>>>>>>> internal or the boundary >>>>>>>>>> being blurred (during her >>>>>>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate >>>>>>>>>> School of Education at >>>>>>>>>> Bristol in 2001 while?I >>>>>>>>>> was?doing my PhD). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, >>>>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>>>>>> stringing together turns >>>>>>>>>> in verbal interaction. >>>>>>>>>> The wiki on Bickerton I >>>>>>>>>> have linked is short and >>>>>>>>>> raises issues discussed >>>>>>>>>> in this subject line and >>>>>>>>>> in the subject line on >>>>>>>>>> Corballis. Bickerton >>>>>>>>>> brings me back to the >>>>>>>>>> circularity of discourse >>>>>>>>>> and the development of >>>>>>>>>> discourse competence. >>>>>>>>>> Usage-based grammar. >>>>>>>>>> Bickerton?s idea that >>>>>>>>>> complex grammar developed >>>>>>>>>> out of the pidgins of our >>>>>>>>>> ancestors is interesting. >>>>>>>>>> Do I see a chicken/egg >>>>>>>>>> problem that for >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>>>> intramental forms of >>>>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is >>>>>>>>>> better understood by >>>>>>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>>>>>> intermental processes?? I >>>>>>>>>> don?t know. Could one say >>>>>>>>>> that inner speech is the >>>>>>>>>> vehicle for turning >>>>>>>>>> discourse into grammar? >>>>>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a >>>>>>>>>> strong biological >>>>>>>>>> component to human >>>>>>>>>> language, though I don?t >>>>>>>>>> remember if he was a >>>>>>>>>> Chomskian. I hope this is >>>>>>>>>> coherent thinking in the >>>>>>>>>> context of our >>>>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 >>>>>>>>>>> PM, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with >>>>>>>>>>> Greg - intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>>>> is relevant and >>>>>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>>>> transcends "outlines"?or >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps sublimates the >>>>>>>>>>> "muddledness" and >>>>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) >>>>>>>>>>> into what Rommetveit >>>>>>>>>>> termed?the "draft of a >>>>>>>>>>> contract". This is >>>>>>>>>>> because shared >>>>>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>>>>> explicit and external >>>>>>>>>>> what would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> remain implicit and >>>>>>>>>>> internal. Rommetveit >>>>>>>>>>> argues that?private >>>>>>>>>>> worlds can only be >>>>>>>>>>> transcended up to a >>>>>>>>>>> certain level and >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to >>>>>>>>>>> agree upon?the?draft of >>>>>>>>>>> a contract with which >>>>>>>>>>> the communication can be >>>>>>>>>>> initiated. In the spirit >>>>>>>>>>> of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and >>>>>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>>>>> approach to human >>>>>>>>>>> communication - and >>>>>>>>>>> especially to the >>>>>>>>>>> problem of linguistic >>>>>>>>>>> mediation and regulation >>>>>>>>>>> in interpsychological >>>>>>>>>>> functioning, with >>>>>>>>>>> reference to semantics, >>>>>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>>>>>> the?intramental forms of >>>>>>>>>>> semiotic mediation?is >>>>>>>>>>> better understood?by >>>>>>>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>>>>>>> intermental processes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think?these >>>>>>>>>>> intermental processes >>>>>>>>>>> (just?like intramental >>>>>>>>>>> ones) can be boiled down >>>>>>>>>>> or distilled?to signs >>>>>>>>>>> and symbols with which >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutors are in >>>>>>>>>>> harmony during?a >>>>>>>>>>> conversation or any >>>>>>>>>>> other joint activities. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet >>>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks >>>>>>>>>>> about no directors >>>>>>>>>>> and symphonic >>>>>>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>>>>> metalogue "why do >>>>>>>>>>> things have >>>>>>>>>>> outlines" >>>>>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>>>>> it raises the >>>>>>>>>>> question of units >>>>>>>>>>> and elements, of how >>>>>>>>>>> a song, a dance,?a >>>>>>>>>>> poem, a >>>>>>>>>>> conversation, to >>>>>>>>>>> make sense, they >>>>>>>>>>> must have a >>>>>>>>>>> recognizable >>>>>>>>>>> outline, even in >>>>>>>>>>> improvisation; they >>>>>>>>>>> must be wholes, or >>>>>>>>>>> suggest wholes. That >>>>>>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>>>>> yet, when you are >>>>>>>>>>> immersed in a >>>>>>>>>>> conversation, the >>>>>>>>>>> fact that you can >>>>>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>>>>> what comes next is >>>>>>>>>>> the whole point >>>>>>>>>>> that?keep >>>>>>>>>>> us?talking, dancing, >>>>>>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November >>>>>>>>>>> 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, >>>>>>>>>>> Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>>>> Re: language and music >>>>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to >>>>>>>>>>> the call and >>>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>>>>>> conversation itself, >>>>>>>>>>> is staged. There are >>>>>>>>>>> performers and and >>>>>>>>>>> an audience made up >>>>>>>>>>> partly of performers >>>>>>>>>>> themselves. How many >>>>>>>>>>> are lurkers, as I am >>>>>>>>>>> usually? This >>>>>>>>>>> conversation has no >>>>>>>>>>> director, but there >>>>>>>>>>> are leaders. There >>>>>>>>>>> is symphonic >>>>>>>>>>> potential. And even >>>>>>>>>>> gestural potential, >>>>>>>>>>> making the chat a >>>>>>>>>>> dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at >>>>>>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For many years I >>>>>>>>>>>> used the work of >>>>>>>>>>>> Ellen Dissenyake to >>>>>>>>>>>> teach comm classes >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>>>>> She is quite >>>>>>>>>>>> unusual in ways >>>>>>>>>>>> that might find >>>>>>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 2:16 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In semiotic >>>>>>>>>>>> terms, whatever >>>>>>>>>>>> each of the >>>>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>>>> has constructed >>>>>>>>>>>> internally is >>>>>>>>>>>> the signified, >>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. his or her >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>>>>>> vocalised >>>>>>>>>>>> (spoken out), >>>>>>>>>>>> it becomes the >>>>>>>>>>>> signifier to >>>>>>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>>>>>> What's more, >>>>>>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>>>> work together >>>>>>>>>>>> to compose a >>>>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>>>> impromptu, each >>>>>>>>>>>> of their >>>>>>>>>>>> signifiers >>>>>>>>>>>> turns into a >>>>>>>>>>>> new signified ? >>>>>>>>>>>> a shared, >>>>>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>>>>>> fabric of >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning making. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>>>>> language, words >>>>>>>>>>>> for singing and >>>>>>>>>>>> dancing have >>>>>>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>>>>>> inseparably. As >>>>>>>>>>>> I see it,?they >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>>>>>> adjusted to >>>>>>>>>>>> allow for, the >>>>>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>>>>> emotions, >>>>>>>>>>>> actions and >>>>>>>>>>>> interactions of >>>>>>>>>>>> a consciousness >>>>>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>>>>> experiencing >>>>>>>>>>>> the singing and >>>>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here >>>>>>>>>>>> are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ????- singing >>>>>>>>>>>> and dancing >>>>>>>>>>>> rapturously >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>>>>> and singing club >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ????- citizens >>>>>>>>>>>> of ancient Yan >>>>>>>>>>>> and Zhao good >>>>>>>>>>>> at singing and >>>>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>>>>>> wonderful songs >>>>>>>>>>>> and dances >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ????- a church >>>>>>>>>>>> or building set >>>>>>>>>>>> up for singing >>>>>>>>>>>> and dancing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 19:08, >>>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>>>> is getting >>>>>>>>>>>> even more >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>>>>>> not that I >>>>>>>>>>>> have an >>>>>>>>>>>> informed >>>>>>>>>>>> answer for >>>>>>>>>>>> you Rob, I >>>>>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>>>>> think of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>>>>> Anthems >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> stand still >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> singing, >>>>>>>>>>>> even then >>>>>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>>>>>>> only in >>>>>>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>>>>>>> when people >>>>>>>>>>>> are likely >>>>>>>>>>>> not to move >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>>>> when there >>>>>>>>>>>> is death >>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>> mood is >>>>>>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>>>>> rhythmic >>>>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>>>> dance are a >>>>>>>>>>>> norm. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This then >>>>>>>>>>>> makes me >>>>>>>>>>>> ?wonder >>>>>>>>>>>> what this >>>>>>>>>>>> means in >>>>>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> light of >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>>>>>> stages ? of >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>>>>> Would the >>>>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>>>>>> constitute >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>>>>>> contained >>>>>>>>>>>> in the music? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? >>>>>>>>>>>> the video >>>>>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> reminds of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching or >>>>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>>>>>> where a >>>>>>>>>>>> group of >>>>>>>>>>>> learners >>>>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>>>> in OD >>>>>>>>>>>> settings) >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> instructed >>>>>>>>>>>> to tell a >>>>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>>>>>> and logical >>>>>>>>>>>> story as a >>>>>>>>>>>> group. They >>>>>>>>>>>> all take >>>>>>>>>>>> turns to >>>>>>>>>>>> say a >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence, a >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>>>>>> not more >>>>>>>>>>>> than 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>>>> (depending >>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>> instructor >>>>>>>>>>>> ), each >>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>> linking >>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence of >>>>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>> next person >>>>>>>>>>>> also doing >>>>>>>>>>>> the same, >>>>>>>>>>>> until the >>>>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>> More >>>>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>>>> is that >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>>>> this story >>>>>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>>>>> It with >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> stories >>>>>>>>>>>> that group >>>>>>>>>>>> dynamics >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> analysed, >>>>>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>>>> cases, >>>>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>>>>>>> of trauma >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>>>>>> suppose >>>>>>>>>>>> this is an >>>>>>>>>>>> example of >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>> I would >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> thought of >>>>>>>>>>>> it as just >>>>>>>>>>>> an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>>>> *On Behalf >>>>>>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* >>>>>>>>>>>> Friday, 16 >>>>>>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>>>>> Re: Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>>>>>> being told >>>>>>>>>>>> once that >>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>>>>> do not have >>>>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>>>> words for >>>>>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>>>> because if >>>>>>>>>>>> you sing >>>>>>>>>>>> you want to >>>>>>>>>>>> move - >>>>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>>>>>> beats it >>>>>>>>>>>> out of you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does >>>>>>>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>>>>>>> know if >>>>>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>>>>> true, or is >>>>>>>>>>>> it complete >>>>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it is >>>>>>>>>>>> true, does >>>>>>>>>>>> it have >>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> to say >>>>>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>>>> body and >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>>>> of speech? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>>>> 17:29, >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am >>>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> going. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>>> Theories >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>>>>>> Hull, >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>>>> a video >>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>>>>>> wove in >>>>>>>>>>>> and out >>>>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> singers >>>>>>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>> drumming >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>>>>>>> 20 >>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>>>>>> ahead >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> seemed >>>>>>>>>>>> to know >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> did it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> studied >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture? >>>>>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> and get >>>>>>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>>>>>> looks. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> listen >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> music, >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>>>> drum >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> is some >>>>>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> - like >>>>>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> Sonata >>>>>>>>>>>> form is >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>>>>>> (they >>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Coen >>>>>>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>>>> opens >>>>>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>>>> theme >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> says, >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>>>> as if >>>>>>>>>>>> we were >>>>>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>>>>> aloud >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>>>>>> book, >>>>>>>>>>>> ?I am >>>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>>>> to tell >>>>>>>>>>>> you a >>>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>> word of >>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>>>>>> Only it >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> many words. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (18) >>>>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>>>> (1996) >>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>>>>>> [1080] >>>>>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>>>>>> CA >>>>>>>>>>>> 94707 >>>>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blog >>>>>>>>>>>> US/ >>>>>>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> 8:56 >>>>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> lot. >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>>>>>> ?at >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> dialog. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> is intended >>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>> addressee >>>>>>>>>>>> only. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have >>>>>>>>>>>> received >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>>>> notify us >>>>>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>>>>> and destroy >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>>>>> You may not >>>>>>>>>>>> copy or >>>>>>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>>>> without the >>>>>>>>>>>> permission >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> University. >>>>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>>>>>>> signatories >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> competent >>>>>>>>>>>> to enter >>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>>>> on behalf >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> recipients >>>>>>>>>>>> are thus >>>>>>>>>>>> advised >>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>> content of >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> message may >>>>>>>>>>>> not be >>>>>>>>>>>> legally >>>>>>>>>>>> binding on >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> and may >>>>>>>>>>>> contain the >>>>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>>>>>> opinions of >>>>>>>>>>>> the author, >>>>>>>>>>>> which are >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>> the views >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> opinions of >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> outsiders >>>>>>>>>>>> are subject >>>>>>>>>>>> to South >>>>>>>>>>>> African Law >>>>>>>>>>>> unless the >>>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>>>>>> writing to >>>>>>>>>>>> the contrary. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>>> >>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/ce8f52fc/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 18:44:54 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 19:44:54 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the theory? -greg [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing different tunes"? Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) > Thank you. > > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not *include > the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). > This means that it can be used for the analysis of *objective* processes. > When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of > Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. > Speech and gesture has a subject. > > The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is > that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of > "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions > we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact > (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the > presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become > Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Andy, > > My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or > charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. > > The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor > Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are > right. > > The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in > fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of > the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them > are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures > that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In > fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I > know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere > documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know > are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of > semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the > point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique > Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice > rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to > semiotics would suggest). > > The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with > linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The > charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their > project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few > who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't > worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this > goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the > language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only > worth it in rare cases). > > I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the > semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo > Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a > humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. > I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the > best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really > genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen > rule! > > Cheers, > greg > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >> transacted in the human babble. >> >> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >> >> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >> relevant answers. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >> language!).] >> >> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >> >> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >> issue in Anthro theory). >> >> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >> for development. >> >> Cheers, >> -greg >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >>> Right on, James! >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >>> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>> >>> James >>> >>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>> >>>> James, >>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>> >>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>> winter and summer! >>>> >>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> >>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>>> haircuts images >>>>> . >>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>> >>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark >>>>>> of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of >>>>>> Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over >>>>>> time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as >>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage >>>>>> as an *a priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This >>>>>> reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are >>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> James, >>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can >>>>>>> be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors >>>>>>> are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the language >>>>>>>>>> teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo >>>>>>>>>> opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading >>>>>>>>>> aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange >>>>>>>>>> story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] >>>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the >>>>>>>>>> notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before >>>>>>>>>> speech was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is >>>>>>>>>> always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it >>>>>>>>>> come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where >>>>>>>>>> it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to >>>>>>>>>> begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make >>>>>>>>>> facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference >>>>>>>>>> non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further >>>>>>>>>> produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions >>>>>>>>>> of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due >>>>>>>>>> to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech >>>>>>>>>> gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity >>>>>>>>>> must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication >>>>>>>>>> (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the >>>>>>>>>> elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, >>>>>>>>>> tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of >>>>>>>>>> articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > 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 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/1db89eac/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 19:11:20 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:11:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the "different" game/tune) On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson wrote: > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what > you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's > notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but > from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in > theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with > regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > -greg > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor > back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing > different tunes"? > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) >> Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not *include >> the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). >> This means that it can be used for the analysis of *objective* >> processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That >> virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's >> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is >> that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of >> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >> we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the >> presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become >> Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or >> charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor >> Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are >> right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in >> fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of >> the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures >> that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >> fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I >> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >> documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know >> are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of >> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >> point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >> semiotics would suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with >> linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >> charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their >> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few >> who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't >> worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the >> language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only >> worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the >> semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo >> Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a >> humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. >> I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >> best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really >> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >> rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >>> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >>> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >>> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >>> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >>> transacted in the human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >>> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >>> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >>> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >>> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >>> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >>> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >>> relevant answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >>> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >>> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >>> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >>> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >>> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >>> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >>> language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >>> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >>> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >>> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >>> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >>> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >>> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >>> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >>> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>> issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >>> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >>> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >>> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >>> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >>> for development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >>>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>>>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>>>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>>>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>>>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>>>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>>>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>>> winter and summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>>>> haircuts images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the >>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the >>>>>>> case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>>> sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words >>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an *a priori *process, involving >>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic >>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used >>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) >>>>>>>> can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which >>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint >>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>>>>>>> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the >>>>>>>>>>> language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete >>>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo >>>>>>>>>>> opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading >>>>>>>>>>> aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange >>>>>>>>>>> story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] >>>>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the >>>>>>>>>>> notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and >>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before >>>>>>>>>>> speech was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is >>>>>>>>>>> always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it >>>>>>>>>>> come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where >>>>>>>>>>> it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to >>>>>>>>>>> begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make >>>>>>>>>>> facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference >>>>>>>>>>> non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further >>>>>>>>>>> produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions >>>>>>>>>>> of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due >>>>>>>>>>> to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech >>>>>>>>>>> gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial >>>>>>>>>>> expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity >>>>>>>>>>> must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication >>>>>>>>>>> (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the >>>>>>>>>>> elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, >>>>>>>>>>> tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge >>>>>>>>>>> of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > 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 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/6d7c68a5/attachment-0001.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 2 20:32:53 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:32:53 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like Peirce's semiotics, take the subject (in the sense of a moral agent) out of a process have an important place in analysis. The same could be said of Structuralism and even Marx's Capital (though it could be argued that for Marx capital is a subject). One can of course study language from a purely structural standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my point is that language (languaging?) is not just a system of signs. Language is an essential part of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in itself be a sign. I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated group, or something of the kind. Peirce is fine. But subjects do not (generally) create words /de novo/; interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use of an already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics /can/ be used to analyse that objectively-existing culture, but close as it comes to a concept of the Subject, I don't think it can get there. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me > wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's > characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe > you were the one who shared it with me but from your tone > here I assume that you feel that it falls short in > theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? > Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > -greg > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn > the metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that > we are simply "playing different tunes"? > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly > behind the game! :) Thank you. > > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in > that it does /not /include the category of Subject in > its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This > means that it can be used for the analysis of > /objective/ processes. When used in this way it does > not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's > semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's > observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. > > The other minor point I would make about your very > erudite response is that I think we should not be too > apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, > mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human > interactions we deduce the state of minds from the > observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or > everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without > the presumption that it is mindful to this or that > extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and > Chomsky would murder us! :) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether you'd >> prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic >> anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a few >> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, >> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that linguistic >> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely >> the things that you are talking about. Most of the >> ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the >> least. Most of them are grappling with issues of >> practice, not just studying formal structures that >> exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that >> exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to >> the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call >> them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >> documenter of language variation across the globe. >> Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of >> understanding the practical consequences of semiotic >> forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes >> precisely the point that you are making through his >> deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce >> offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived >> practice rather than one that exists only in the >> "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would >> suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can just >> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their >> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable >> approach might suggest that we should at least >> acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to >> do. I figured that there might be a few who are >> interested, but most on the listserve will find that >> it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't >> blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of >> academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that >> learning the language of an entirely new system is a >> major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get >> to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that >> you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book >> How Forests Think). I understand that you are very >> much a humanist and don't like this approach for some >> very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed >> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best >> person to make the case for this position - unless >> you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm >> already well beyond your one screen rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: >> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic >> or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking >> about such things as psychological functioning" >> and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in >> what people do as well as what they think. In >> other words, the turn to seeing language as a >> system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* >> project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the >> babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally >> analysed with the same set of concepts as the >> babbling of a group of humans in conversation. >> But this is purely formal, superficial and >> obscures what is expressed and transacted in the >> human babble. >> >> I can understand the fascination in such formal >> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can >> be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the >> real world (mathematics being the supreme >> example), but ....! One really has to keep in >> mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer >> the question of how it is that humans alone have >> language by saying that everything has language, >> even inanimate processes (and this is how I >> interpret the equation of language with Peircean >> signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >> >> As an example of how such formal processes lead >> to grave errors is the Language Acquisition >> Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal >> analysis of language. And yet to hold that an >> actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD >> exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent >> with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian >> evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not >> both. Which tells me that there is a problem with >> this formal analysis, even though I gasp in >> wonder every time Google manages to correctly >> parse an ordinary language question I ask it and >> deliver very relevant answers. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this >>> group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned >>> previously (the proliferation of technical >>> languages in different fields and the >>> time-intensive labor of translating >>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking >>> from one of these fields to the next). Add the >>> fact that there are few who have much interest >>> in one of the field of linguistic anthropology >>> (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean >>> semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), >>> and this means the following post will likely >>> remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>> ill intentions but simply because this is an >>> impossible situation for anyone to commit to >>> learning an entirely new language for talking >>> about language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you >>> would point to (!) the indexical and iconic >>> potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that >>> this flattens the oft-made distinction between >>> gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant >>> ideology of language tends to assume that spoken >>> language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only >>> indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of >>> indexical and iconic functions offers us a way >>> into seeing how spoken language is also >>> indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who >>> dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course >>> he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and >>> "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his >>> project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was >>> one of the first to point to the problem of this >>> dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career >>> off of this simple point, first elaborated in >>> his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since >>> then in numerous other works. Many others >>> working in linguistic anthropology have spent >>> the last 40 years expanding on this project by >>> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of >>> spoken language in the concepts of >>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently >>> linguistic anthropologists have considered the >>> processes by which sign-functions can shift from >>> one function to another - e.g., rhematization - >>> from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan >>> Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - >>> from symbolic or iconic to indexical?(see Webb >>> Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have >>> looked at more basic features of >>> sign-functioning such as the realization of >>> qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' >>> special issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the present list >>> serve is that the processes being described by >>> these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental >>> to understanding human psychological functioning >>> and yet most of the anthropologists I know, >>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as >>> psychological functioning (one exception here is >>> Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, >>> Subject, Self - although beware that his writing >>> is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I >>> suspect that this could be a particularly >>> productive intersection for development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Right on, James! >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I >>>> discussion to be exploratory and free >>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of >>>> subjectness and subjectless. When it comes >>>> to scholarly writing, we know we will >>>> switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD >>> > ? >>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> >>>> James, >>>> This conversation has been so >>>> satisfying I don?t want to let go of >>>> it, so I hope I am not tiring you or >>>> others with all the connections I find. >>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, >>>> I?ll just keep on talking and remark on >>>> how the duck tail hair cut is a rich >>>> gesture, an important concept in this >>>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of >>>> communication present in many species. >>>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a >>>> rudimentary form of language with >>>> evolutionary results in human language. >>>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the >>>> business of quotes in the subject line >>>> now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and >>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, >>>> contributing right now) on the last >>>> chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and >>>> Language as an issue of gesture. >>>> Language, written language in this >>>> case, is limited in its ability to >>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes >>>> ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>> sources familar in the day that >>>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were >>>> not necessary. Dan Slobin, >>>> psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote >>>> that two charges of language where in >>>> ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and >>>> 2) get it said before losing the thread >>>> of thinking and talking. Gesture, I >>>> would like to argue, is an aspect of >>>> discourse that helps to address this >>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a >>>> gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>> belie the idea that a single turn can >>>> ever be totally clear in and of itself. >>>> Writing, as we are doing now, is always >>>> dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn >>>> in discourse. And we keep on posting >>>> our turns. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on?for >>>>> this?subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. >>>>> Funnily enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old son >>>>> to have?because he has much thicker >>>>> hair than most boys. >>>>> Unfortunately?last year the boy had >>>>> a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off by?the >>>>> school?authority (in >>>>> China).?However,?my brother >>>>> has?managed to restore?the?ducktail >>>>> twice a year during?the boy's?long >>>>> school holiday in winter and summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation >>>>> are predictable due to participants' >>>>> intersubjective awareness of the >>>>> subject. Yet,?the nuances of >>>>> conversation (just like each >>>>> individual's ducktail unique?to >>>>> himself)?are unpredictable because of >>>>> the waywardness of?our mind. What's >>>>> more, such?nuances?create the fluidity >>>>> of conversation which makes >>>>> it?difficult (or even?unnecessary) >>>>> to?predict?what comes next - this is >>>>> perhaps the whole point that >>>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo pointed >>>>> out?earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY >>>>> SHONERD >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Back at you, James. The images of >>>>> the mandarin drake reminded me of >>>>> a hair style popularin the late >>>>> 50s when I was in high school >>>>> (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts >>>>> images >>>>> . >>>>> One of the photos in the link is >>>>> of Elvis Presley, an alpha male >>>>> high school boys sought to >>>>> emulate. Note that some of the >>>>> photos are of women, interesting >>>>> in light of issues of gender >>>>> fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>> remember when women started taking >>>>> on the hair style. Since I >>>>> mentioned Elvis Presley, this post >>>>> counts as relevant to the subject >>>>> line! Ha! >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just >>>>>> thought you might like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> > ? >>>>>> 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>> >>>>>> What a beautiful photo, >>>>>> James, and providing it is a >>>>>> move on this subject line >>>>>> that instantiates nicely >>>>>> Gee?s conception of >>>>>> discourse. Thanks for your >>>>>> thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 >>>>>>> AM, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info >>>>>>> on Derek Bickerton. One of >>>>>>> the interesting things is >>>>>>> his conception of >>>>>>> displacement as the hallmark >>>>>>> of language, whether iconic, >>>>>>> indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>>> the case of Chinese >>>>>>> language, the sounds are >>>>>>> decontextualised or >>>>>>> sublimated over time to >>>>>>> become something more >>>>>>> integrated into the words >>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. >>>>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas >>>>>>> are suggestive of the study >>>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a >>>>>>> priori /process, involving >>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This >>>>>>> reminds me of methods used >>>>>>> in diachronic linguistics, >>>>>>> which I felt are relevant to >>>>>>> CHAT just as much as those >>>>>>> used in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and >>>>>>> "intramental", I can see >>>>>>> your point. In fact I >>>>>>> don't?take Vygotsky's >>>>>>> "interpsychological" and >>>>>>> "intrapsychological" >>>>>>> categories?to be?dichotomies >>>>>>> or binary opposites. >>>>>>> Whenever it comes to their >>>>>>> relationship, I tend to have >>>>>>> a post-structuralism imagery >>>>>>> present in my mind, >>>>>>> particularly related to a >>>>>>> Derridean stance for the >>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any >>>>>>> idea is not entirely >>>>>>> distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; >>>>>>> rather, it entails a >>>>>>> supplement of the other idea >>>>>>> which is?already embedded in >>>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>> categoriesare relational >>>>>>> (dialectical); they are >>>>>>> somehow like a pair of >>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see attached >>>>>>> image). I also like to think >>>>>>> that each of these >>>>>>> categories is both >>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" >>>>>>> (here discourse is in tune >>>>>>> with James Gee's conception >>>>>>> of discourse as a patchwork >>>>>>> of actions, interactions, >>>>>>> thoughts, feelings etc). I >>>>>>> recall Barbara Rogoff >>>>>>> talking about there being no >>>>>>> boundary between the >>>>>>> external and the internal or >>>>>>> the boundary being blurred >>>>>>> (during her seminar?in?the >>>>>>> Graduate School of Education >>>>>>> at Bristol in 2001 while?I >>>>>>> was?doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>> 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James, >>>>>>> I think it was Derek >>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>> who argued that ?formal >>>>>>> syntax? developed from >>>>>>> stringing together turns >>>>>>> in verbal interaction. >>>>>>> The wiki on Bickerton I >>>>>>> have linked is short and >>>>>>> raises issues discussed >>>>>>> in this subject line and >>>>>>> in the subject line on >>>>>>> Corballis. Bickerton >>>>>>> brings me back to the >>>>>>> circularity of discourse >>>>>>> and the development of >>>>>>> discourse competence. >>>>>>> Usage-based grammar. >>>>>>> Bickerton?s idea that >>>>>>> complex grammar >>>>>>> developed out of the >>>>>>> pidgins of our ancestors >>>>>>> is interesting. Do I see >>>>>>> a chicken/egg problem >>>>>>> that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>> intramental forms of >>>>>>> semiotic mediation is >>>>>>> better understood by >>>>>>> examining the types of >>>>>>> intermental processes?? >>>>>>> I don?t know. Could one >>>>>>> say that inner speech is >>>>>>> the vehicle for turning >>>>>>> discourse into grammar? >>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a >>>>>>> strong biological >>>>>>> component to human >>>>>>> language, though I don?t >>>>>>> remember if he was a >>>>>>> Chomskian. I hope this >>>>>>> is coherent thinking in >>>>>>> the context of our >>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 3:22 PM, James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with >>>>>>>> Greg - >>>>>>>> intersubjectivity is >>>>>>>> relevant and pertinent >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>> transcends >>>>>>>> "outlines"?or perhaps >>>>>>>> sublimates the >>>>>>>> "muddledness" and >>>>>>>> "unpredictability" of a >>>>>>>> conversation (as in >>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) >>>>>>>> into what Rommetveit >>>>>>>> termed?the "draft of a >>>>>>>> contract". This is >>>>>>>> because shared >>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>> explicit and external >>>>>>>> what would otherwise >>>>>>>> remain implicit and >>>>>>>> internal. Rommetveit >>>>>>>> argues that?private >>>>>>>> worlds can only be >>>>>>>> transcended up to a >>>>>>>> certain level and >>>>>>>> interlocutors need to >>>>>>>> agree upon?the?draft of >>>>>>>> a contract with which >>>>>>>> the communication can >>>>>>>> be initiated. In the >>>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he >>>>>>>> uses a "pluralistic" >>>>>>>> and "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>> approach to human >>>>>>>> communication - and >>>>>>>> especially to the >>>>>>>> problem of linguistic >>>>>>>> mediation and >>>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>>> functioning, with >>>>>>>> reference to semantics, >>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For him, >>>>>>>> the?intramental forms >>>>>>>> of semiotic >>>>>>>> mediation?is better >>>>>>>> understood?by examining >>>>>>>> the types of >>>>>>>> intermental processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think?these >>>>>>>> intermental processes >>>>>>>> (just?like intramental >>>>>>>> ones) can be boiled >>>>>>>> down or distilled?to >>>>>>>> signs and symbols with >>>>>>>> which interlocutors are >>>>>>>> in harmony during?a >>>>>>>> conversation or any >>>>>>>> other joint activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet >>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry's remarks >>>>>>>> about no directors >>>>>>>> and symphonic >>>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>> me?of G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>> metalogue "why do >>>>>>>> things have >>>>>>>> outlines" >>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>> it raises the >>>>>>>> question of units >>>>>>>> and elements, of >>>>>>>> how a song, a >>>>>>>> dance,?a poem, a >>>>>>>> conversation, to >>>>>>>> make sense, they >>>>>>>> must have a >>>>>>>> recognizable >>>>>>>> outline, even in >>>>>>>> improvisation; they >>>>>>>> must be wholes, or >>>>>>>> suggest wholes. >>>>>>>> That makes them >>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>> yet, when you are >>>>>>>> immersed in a >>>>>>>> conversation, the >>>>>>>> fact that you can >>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>> what comes next is >>>>>>>> the whole point >>>>>>>> that?keep >>>>>>>> us?talking, >>>>>>>> dancing, drawing, etc! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November >>>>>>>> 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended >>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>> Re: language and music >>>>>>>> I?d like to add to >>>>>>>> the call and >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>> conversation that >>>>>>>> discourse, this >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> itself, is staged. >>>>>>>> There are >>>>>>>> performers and and >>>>>>>> an audience made up >>>>>>>> partly of >>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>> themselves. How >>>>>>>> many are lurkers, >>>>>>>> as I am usually? >>>>>>>> This conversation >>>>>>>> has no director, >>>>>>>> but there are >>>>>>>> leaders. There is >>>>>>>> symphonic >>>>>>>> potential. And even >>>>>>>> gestural potential, >>>>>>>> making the chat a >>>>>>>> dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, >>>>>>>>> at 9:05 PM, mike >>>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many years I >>>>>>>>> used the work of >>>>>>>>> Ellen Dissenyake >>>>>>>>> to teach comm >>>>>>>>> classes about >>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>> She is quite >>>>>>>>> unusual in ways >>>>>>>>> that might find >>>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, >>>>>>>>> 2018 at 2:16 PM >>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In semiotic >>>>>>>>> terms, >>>>>>>>> whatever each >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> constructed >>>>>>>>> internally is >>>>>>>>> the signified, >>>>>>>>> i.e. his or >>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>> When it is >>>>>>>>> vocalised >>>>>>>>> (spoken out), >>>>>>>>> it becomes the >>>>>>>>> signifier to >>>>>>>>> the listener. >>>>>>>>> What's more, >>>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> work together >>>>>>>>> to compose a >>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>> each of their >>>>>>>>> signifiers >>>>>>>>> turns into a >>>>>>>>> new signified >>>>>>>>> ? a shared, >>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>> woven into the >>>>>>>>> fabric of >>>>>>>>> meaning making. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the way, in >>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>> language, >>>>>>>>> words for >>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>> dancing have >>>>>>>>> long been used >>>>>>>>> inseparably. >>>>>>>>> As I see >>>>>>>>> it,?they are >>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>> indexed to, or >>>>>>>>> adjusted to >>>>>>>>> allow for, the >>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>> emotions, >>>>>>>>> actions and >>>>>>>>> interactions >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>> experiencing >>>>>>>>> the singing >>>>>>>>> and dancing. >>>>>>>>> Here are some >>>>>>>>> idioms: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- singing >>>>>>>>> and dancing >>>>>>>>> rapturously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>> and singing club >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- citizens >>>>>>>>> of ancient Yan >>>>>>>>> and Zhao good >>>>>>>>> at singing and >>>>>>>>> dancing, hence >>>>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>> songs and dances >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- a church >>>>>>>>> or building >>>>>>>>> set up for >>>>>>>>> singing and >>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov >>>>>>>>> 2018 at 19:08, >>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> is getting >>>>>>>>> even more >>>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>>> not that I >>>>>>>>> have an >>>>>>>>> informed >>>>>>>>> answer for >>>>>>>>> you Rob, I >>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>> think of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>> Anthems >>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> stand >>>>>>>>> still when >>>>>>>>> singing, >>>>>>>>> even then >>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>>>> only in >>>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> people are >>>>>>>>> likely not >>>>>>>>> to move >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> when there >>>>>>>>> is death >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> mood is >>>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> rhythmic >>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>> dance are >>>>>>>>> a norm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This then >>>>>>>>> makes me >>>>>>>>> ?wonder >>>>>>>>> what this >>>>>>>>> means in >>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> light of >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>>> stages ? >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>> Would the >>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>>> constitute >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>>> contained >>>>>>>>> in the music? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena ? >>>>>>>>> the video >>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> reminds of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> teaching >>>>>>>>> or group >>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>>> where a >>>>>>>>> group of >>>>>>>>> learners >>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> in OD >>>>>>>>> settings) >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> instructed >>>>>>>>> to tell a >>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>> story as a >>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>> They all >>>>>>>>> take turns >>>>>>>>> to say a >>>>>>>>> sentence, >>>>>>>>> a sentence >>>>>>>>> of not >>>>>>>>> more than >>>>>>>>> 6 words >>>>>>>>> (depending >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> instructor >>>>>>>>> ), each >>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>> linking >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>> person >>>>>>>>> also doing >>>>>>>>> the same, >>>>>>>>> until the >>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>>> More >>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>> is that >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> this story >>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>> It with >>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>> stories >>>>>>>>> that group >>>>>>>>> dynamics >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> analysed, >>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>> cases, >>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>>>> of trauma >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> shared.? I >>>>>>>>> suppose >>>>>>>>> this is an >>>>>>>>> example of >>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>> I would >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> thought of >>>>>>>>> it as just >>>>>>>>> an ?activity? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>> *On Behalf >>>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* >>>>>>>>> Friday, 16 >>>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>>> 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>>> Michael C. >>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I remember >>>>>>>>> being told >>>>>>>>> once that >>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>> do not >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>> words for >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>> because if >>>>>>>>> you sing >>>>>>>>> you want >>>>>>>>> to move - >>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>>> beats it >>>>>>>>> out of you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does >>>>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>>>> know if >>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>> true, or >>>>>>>>> is it >>>>>>>>> complete cod? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it is >>>>>>>>> true, does >>>>>>>>> it have >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> to say >>>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>> body and >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>> of speech? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>> 17:29, >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> going. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> Theories >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>>> Hull, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> video >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>>> wove >>>>>>>>> in and >>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> singers >>>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> drumming >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>>>> 20 >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>>> ahead >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> seemed >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> did it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> studied >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> gesture? >>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>>> looks. >>>>>>>>> Yet >>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> listen >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> music, >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>> drum >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> - like >>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> Sonata >>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>>> (they >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> Coen >>>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>> opens >>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>> theme >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> says, >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>> as if >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>> aloud >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>>> book, >>>>>>>>> ?I am >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>> you a >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>> of it >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (18) >>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>> (1996) >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>>> [1080] >>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>>> CA >>>>>>>>> 94707 >>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blog >>>>>>>>> US/ >>>>>>>>> Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> 8:56 >>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> lot. >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>>> ?at >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> dialog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> intended >>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>> addressee >>>>>>>>> only. It >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>>> If you >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> received >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> in error, >>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>> notify us >>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> destroy >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>> You may >>>>>>>>> not copy >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> permission >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> University. >>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>>>> signatories >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> competent >>>>>>>>> to enter >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>> on behalf >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> recipients >>>>>>>>> are thus >>>>>>>>> advised >>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>> content of >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> may not be >>>>>>>>> legally >>>>>>>>> binding on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> and may >>>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>> views and >>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> author, >>>>>>>>> which are >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> necessarily >>>>>>>>> the views >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>> of The >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> outsiders >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> subject to >>>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>>> African >>>>>>>>> Law unless >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>> agrees in >>>>>>>>> writing to >>>>>>>>> the contrary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/ec34af88/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 21:08:30 2018 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:08:30 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Interesting and very helpful Andy. Thanks very much for your lovely explanations. Very best, greg On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:35 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like Peirce's semiotics, > take the subject (in the sense of a moral agent) out of a process have an > important place in analysis. The same could be said of Structuralism and > even Marx's Capital (though it could be argued that for Marx capital is a > subject). One can of course study language from a purely structural > standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my point is that language > (languaging?) is not just a system of signs. Language is an essential part > of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which consciousness > mediates between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in > itself be a sign. > > I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated group, or something of > the kind. Peirce is fine. But subjects do not (generally) create words *de > novo*; interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use of an > already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics *can* be used to analyse > that objectively-existing culture, but close as it comes to a concept of > the Subject, I don't think it can get there. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what > you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's > notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but > from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in > theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with > regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > -greg > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor > back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing > different tunes"? > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) >> Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not *include >> the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). >> This means that it can be used for the analysis of *objective* >> processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That >> virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's >> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is >> that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of >> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >> we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the >> presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become >> Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or >> charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor >> Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are >> right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in >> fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of >> the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures >> that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >> fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I >> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >> documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know >> are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of >> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >> point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >> semiotics would suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with >> linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >> charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their >> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few >> who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't >> worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the >> language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only >> worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the >> semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo >> Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a >> humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. >> I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >> best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really >> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >> rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >>> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >>> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >>> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >>> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >>> transacted in the human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >>> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >>> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >>> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >>> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >>> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >>> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >>> relevant answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >>> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >>> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >>> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >>> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >>> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >>> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >>> language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >>> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >>> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >>> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >>> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >>> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >>> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >>> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >>> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>> issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >>> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >>> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >>> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >>> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >>> for development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >>>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>>>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>>>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>>>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>>>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>>>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>>>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>>> winter and summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>>>> haircuts images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the >>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the >>>>>>> case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>>> sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words >>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an *a priori *process, involving >>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic >>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used >>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) >>>>>>>> can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which >>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint >>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>>>>>>> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the >>>>>>>>>>> language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete >>>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo >>>>>>>>>>> opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading >>>>>>>>>>> aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange >>>>>>>>>>> story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] >>>>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the >>>>>>>>>>> notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and >>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before >>>>>>>>>>> speech was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is >>>>>>>>>>> always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it >>>>>>>>>>> come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where >>>>>>>>>>> it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to >>>>>>>>>>> begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make >>>>>>>>>>> facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference >>>>>>>>>>> non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further >>>>>>>>>>> produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions >>>>>>>>>>> of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due >>>>>>>>>>> to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech >>>>>>>>>>> gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial >>>>>>>>>>> expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity >>>>>>>>>>> must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication >>>>>>>>>>> (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the >>>>>>>>>>> elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, >>>>>>>>>>> tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge >>>>>>>>>>> of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > 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 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/36898ecc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Dec 8 17:53:14 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:53:14 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] language and semiotics In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Thank you for raising this issue, Greg. I have been participating in an academia.edu session on my origins of language paper concurrently with little overlap between participants. However, I am struck by the persistence of this claim, viz., that language is a system of signs, and sign-use is universal in the animal kingdom (and Peirce would correctly say: "not only animals, but all processes without exception"). The issue is not one of Peirce's Semiotics, but simply the view that the subjective element is irrelevant to language. Can some of the linguists on this list tell me how this claim is usually dealt with. Vygotsky is clear enough (as I read him anyway): "a word without meaning is just a sound" but how does linguistics more widely rebut the claim that language, however simple (i.e., e.g. a one-word sentence lacking recursion) is not simply a sign? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 4:08 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: > Interesting and very helpful Andy. > Thanks very much for your lovely explanations. > Very best, > greg > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:35 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like > Peirce's semiotics, take the subject (in the sense of > a moral agent) out of a process have an important > place in analysis. The same could be said of > Structuralism and even Marx's Capital (though it could > be argued that for Marx capital is a subject). One can > of course study language from a purely structural > standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my > point is that language (languaging?) is not just a > system of signs. Language is an essential part of a > specific form of life, namely human life, in which > consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, > and that consciousness cannot in itself be a sign. > > I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated > group, or something of the kind. Peirce is fine. But > subjects do not (generally) create words /de novo/; > interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use > of an already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics > /can/ be used to analyse that objectively-existing > culture, but close as it comes to a concept of the > Subject, I don't think it can get there. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! >> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly >> "behind"!) >> >> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it >> makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard to >> Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's notion of >> the self? I believe you were the one who shared it >> with me but from your tone here I assume that you >> feel that it falls short in theorizing a >> "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? >> Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the >> theory? >> >> -greg >> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might >> turn the metaphor back to the original thread by >> noting(!) that we are simply "playing different tunes"? >> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am >> thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great >> advantage in that it does /not /include the >> category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | >> interpretant | object). This means that it can be >> used for the analysis of /objective/ processes. >> When used in this way it does not imply >> "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's >> semiotics was the basis of my objection to >> James's observation. Speech and gesture has a >> subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your >> very erudite response is that I think we should >> not be too apologetic about using the concept of >> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but >> in all human interactions we deduce the state of >> minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is >> incomprehensible without the presumption that it >> is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we >> become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether you'd >>> prefer to be critical or charitable toward >>> linguistic anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a few >>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, >>> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you >>> are right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that >>> linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing >>> with precisely the things that you are talking >>> about. Most of the ones that I know are >>> anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >>> are grappling with issues of practice, not just >>> studying formal structures that exist in >>> someplace called "the mind" (where is that >>> exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults >>> to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is >>> to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is >>> to say, a mere documenter of language variation >>> across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in >>> fact very mindful of understanding the practical >>> consequences of semiotic forms. In his book >>> Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >>> point that you are making through his deployment >>> of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a >>> means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >>> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" >>> (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you can >>> just dispense with linguistic anthropology and >>> all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >>> charitable approach might suggest that we should >>> at least acknowledge their project. That's all I >>> was hoping to do. I figured that there might be >>> a few who are interested, but most on the >>> listserve will find that it wasn't worth >>> investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as >>> someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm >>> very sensitive to the fact that learning the >>> language of an entirely new system is a major >>> time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated when >>> we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human >>> agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., >>> Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I >>> understand that you are very much a humanist and >>> don't like this approach for some very >>> fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed >>> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >>> best person to make the case for this position - >>> unless you are really genuinely interested. And >>> besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >>> rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, >>> Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, >>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as >>> psychological functioning" and therefore, it >>> seems to me, little interest in what people >>> do as well as what they think. In other >>> words, the turn to seeing language as a >>> system of Peircean signs is an entirely >>> *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a >>> brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys >>> can be formally analysed with the same set >>> of concepts as the babbling of a group of >>> humans in conversation. But this is purely >>> formal, superficial and obscures what is >>> expressed and transacted in the human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such >>> formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean >>> Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and >>> often insights come out from such formal >>> disciplines relevant to the real world >>> (mathematics being the supreme example), but >>> ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the >>> question of how it is that humans alone have >>> language by saying that everything has >>> language, even inanimate processes (and this >>> is how I interpret the equation of language >>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than >>> missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes >>> lead to grave errors is the Language >>> Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by >>> Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And >>> yet to hold that an actual biological, >>> neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all >>> human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian >>> evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not >>> both. Which tells me that there is a problem >>> with this formal analysis, even though I >>> gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language >>> question I ask it and deliver very relevant >>> answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to >>>> this group for precisely the reasons Helena >>>> mentioned previously (the proliferation of >>>> technical languages in different fields and >>>> the time-intensive labor of translating >>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of >>>> thinking from one of these fields to the >>>> next). Add the fact that there are few who >>>> have much interest in one of the field of >>>> linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling >>>> anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a >>>> tangle of words in its own right), and this >>>> means the following post will likely remain >>>> an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>>> ill intentions but simply because this is >>>> an impossible situation for anyone to >>>> commit to learning an entirely new language >>>> for talking about language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you >>>> would point to (!) the indexical and iconic >>>> potentials of SPOKEN language while noting >>>> that this flattens the oft-made distinction >>>> between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>>> dominant ideology of language tends to >>>> assume that spoken language is (only?) >>>> symbolic and gesture is only indexical and >>>> iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and >>>> iconic functions offers us a way into >>>> seeing how spoken language is also >>>> indexical and iconic (as opposed to >>>> Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - >>>> e.g., in the Course he dismisses >>>> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" >>>> (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson >>>> was one of the first to point to the >>>> problem of this dominant ideology of >>>> language, and Michael Silverstein has made >>>> a rather substantial career off of this >>>> simple point, first elaborated in his >>>> famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since >>>> then in numerous other works. Many others >>>> working in linguistic anthropology have >>>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this >>>> project by exploring the indexical and >>>> iconic nature of spoken language in the >>>> concepts of "indexicality" and >>>> "iconization". More recently linguistic >>>> anthropologists have considered the >>>> processes by which sign-functions can shift >>>> from one function to another - e.g., >>>> rhematization - from indexical or symbolic >>>> to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's >>>> work), and iconization - from symbolic or >>>> iconic to indexical?(see Webb Keane's and >>>> Chris Ball's work). And others have looked >>>> at more basic features of sign-functioning >>>> such as the realization of qualia (see Lily >>>> Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>>> issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the present >>>> list serve is that the processes being >>>> described by these linguistic >>>> anthropologists are fundamental to >>>> understanding human psychological >>>> functioning and yet most of the >>>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>>> otherwise, don't have much interest in >>>> talking about such things as psychological >>>> functioning (one exception here is Paul >>>> Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, >>>> Subject, Self - although beware that his >>>> writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a >>>> particularly productive intersection for >>>> development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY >>>> SHONERD >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I >>>>> discussion to be exploratory and free >>>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of >>>>> subjectness and subjectless. When it >>>>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we >>>>> will switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so >>>>> satisfying I don?t want to let go >>>>> of it, so I hope I am not tiring >>>>> you or others with all the >>>>> connections I find. But, in the >>>>> spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll >>>>> just keep on talking and remark on >>>>> how the duck tail hair cut is a >>>>> rich gesture, an important concept >>>>> in this subject line. Gesture is >>>>> an aspect of communication present >>>>> in many species. Hence, the >>>>> importance of gesture as a >>>>> rudimentary form of language with >>>>> evolutionary results in human >>>>> language. Maybe this is a reach, >>>>> but I see the business of quotes >>>>> in the subject line now taking >>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and >>>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, >>>>> contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech >>>>> and Language as an issue of >>>>> gesture. Language, written >>>>> language in this case, is limited >>>>> in its ability to provide nuance. >>>>> Writing without quotes ?gestured?, >>>>> pointed to to author sources >>>>> familar in the day that Vygotsky >>>>> wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, >>>>> psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, >>>>> wrote that two charges of language >>>>> where in ?tension?: 1) make >>>>> yourself clear and 2) get it said >>>>> before losing the thread of >>>>> thinking and talking. Gesture, I >>>>> would like to argue, is an aspect >>>>> of discourse that helps to address >>>>> this tension. A turn (in >>>>> discourse) is a gesture, with >>>>> temporal constraints that belie >>>>> the idea that a single turn can >>>>> ever be totally clear in and of >>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing >>>>> now, is always dialogic, even a >>>>> whole book, is a turn in >>>>> discourse. And we keep on posting >>>>> our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot >>>>>> on?for this?subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is >>>>>> fabulous. Funnily >>>>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old >>>>>> son to have?because he has much >>>>>> thicker hair than most boys. >>>>>> Unfortunately?last year the boy >>>>>> had a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off >>>>>> by?the school?authority (in >>>>>> China).?However,?my brother >>>>>> has?managed to >>>>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>>>> during?the boy's?long school >>>>>> holiday in winter and summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of >>>>>> conversation are predictable due >>>>>> to participants' intersubjective >>>>>> awareness of the subject. >>>>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation >>>>>> (just like each individual's >>>>>> ducktail unique?to himself)?are >>>>>> unpredictable because of the >>>>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's >>>>>> more, such?nuances?create the >>>>>> fluidity of conversation which >>>>>> makes it?difficult (or >>>>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what >>>>>> comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>>> whole point that >>>>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo >>>>>> pointed out?earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181209/7ff05435/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Dec 9 14:15:04 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 22:15:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said: "Language is an essential part of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in itself be a sign". I found this interesting - would it encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a creation of minds or mental states? Are you saying that consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful? More specifically, linking consciousness with language, do you consider both the intentionality of consciousness and the linguistic structures as described in analytical philosophy (I guess you're more of an analytical philosopher)? I wondered, in your view, what would serve as a foundation for knowledge, if human subjects had no recourse to the narratives of "transcendent being" or "higher being". I'm interested in Wittgenstein and Husserl, both of whom examined language and consciousness. Wittgenstein saw limits in what philosophy could do in terms of explaining and understanding; Husserl stressed limits in articulating or communicating consciousness. Can you comment on this and perhaps how it might be implicated in your position? Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? As I see it, consciousness is the signifying and the signified, both of which evolve as consciousness evolves. In Peirce's terms, consciousness is a semiosis. In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language". Reading Peirce, I've found it intriguing that a great deal of his pragmaticism (as distinguished from William James's pragmatism) can be packed into his semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might be studied against the backdrop of his pragmaticism (which provides a conceptual basis for his tripartite of the sign). As I see it, Peircean pragmatism is also a theory of meaning, indicative of the role of language in making clear what we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is meant by "going around the tree" in William James's "squirrel on the tree"). This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far on Xmca-I. I'm busy again from tomorrow but will be joyfully watching how it develops in the background! James *________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 04:35, Andy Blunden wrote: > Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like Peirce's semiotics, > take the subject (in the sense of a moral agent) out of a process have an > important place in analysis. The same could be said of Structuralism and > even Marx's Capital (though it could be argued that for Marx capital is a > subject). One can of course study language from a purely structural > standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my point is that language > (languaging?) is not just a system of signs. Language is an essential part > of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which consciousness > mediates between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in > itself be a sign. > > I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated group, or something of > the kind. Peirce is fine. But subjects do not (generally) create words *de > novo*; interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use of an > already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics *can* be used to analyse > that objectively-existing culture, but close as it comes to a concept of > the Subject, I don't think it can get there. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what > you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's > notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but > from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in > theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with > regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > -greg > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor > back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing > different tunes"? > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) >> Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not *include >> the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). >> This means that it can be used for the analysis of *objective* >> processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That >> virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's >> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is >> that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of >> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >> we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the >> presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become >> Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or >> charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor >> Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are >> right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in >> fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of >> the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures >> that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >> fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I >> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >> documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know >> are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of >> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >> point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >> semiotics would suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with >> linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >> charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their >> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few >> who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't >> worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the >> language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only >> worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the >> semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo >> Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a >> humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. >> I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >> best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really >> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >> rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >>> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >>> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >>> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >>> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >>> transacted in the human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >>> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >>> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >>> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >>> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >>> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >>> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >>> relevant answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >>> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >>> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >>> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >>> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >>> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >>> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >>> language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >>> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >>> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >>> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >>> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >>> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >>> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >>> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >>> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>> issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >>> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >>> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >>> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >>> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >>> for development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free >>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it >>>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, >>>>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. >>>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark >>>>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in >>>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many >>>>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language >>>>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I >>>>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna >>>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. >>>>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to >>>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>>> winter and summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a >>>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail >>>>>> haircuts images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the >>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the >>>>>>> case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>>> sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words >>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an *a priori *process, involving >>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic >>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used >>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) >>>>>>>> can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which >>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint >>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>>>>>>> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of language >>>>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the >>>>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the >>>>>>>>>>> language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete >>>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo >>>>>>>>>>> opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading >>>>>>>>>>> aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange >>>>>>>>>>> story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] >>>>>>>>>>> - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the >>>>>>>>>>> notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and >>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called >>>>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It >>>>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically >>>>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present >>>>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive >>>>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as >>>>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an >>>>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the >>>>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it >>>>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only >>>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before >>>>>>>>>>> speech was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is >>>>>>>>>>> always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it >>>>>>>>>>> come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where >>>>>>>>>>> it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to >>>>>>>>>>> begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make >>>>>>>>>>> facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference >>>>>>>>>>> non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further >>>>>>>>>>> produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions >>>>>>>>>>> of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due >>>>>>>>>>> to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech >>>>>>>>>>> gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial >>>>>>>>>>> expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity >>>>>>>>>>> must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication >>>>>>>>>>> (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the >>>>>>>>>>> elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, >>>>>>>>>>> tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge >>>>>>>>>>> of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> 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 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181209/ccaf69c9/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 9 17:46:18 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:46:18 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and consciousness In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: <1a561da2-74dd-b100-5ca8-f598fb5bcc27@marxists.org> (1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy This is the tribal division which divides philosophy departments across the Anglosphere into rival, mutually incomprehensible tribes. My lights - Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky - are certainly not part of Analytical Philosophy but are not really Continentals either. The Pragmatists - from Dewey, James and Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are not quite Analytical Philosophers, but these are the only Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am definitely not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental philosopher either. All the people I like are "in between." (2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?" This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, as a Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a Subjective Idealist. (3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful?" Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean otherwise, so something of this kind must be the case. (4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph beginning "More specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's view of the mutually interconnected development of verbal intellect and intelligent speech (whether verbal or signed). I don't want to add anything to what Vygotsky said in "Thinking and Speech." (5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is a powerful one and can be utilised consistently with Vygotsky's views on the solution of relevant problems. But the thing is that consciousness is not something which in itself has any impact on the external world, only mediately through the physiology of the thinking body and material objects wielded by the body. You strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's Semiology when you say: "consciousness is the signifying and the signified." How can consciousness signify if it is not empirically given? Unless you are just referencing an "internal world" here? (6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language"? As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like structuralism or functionalism or behaviourism), an extremely powerful approach, for the objective analysis of culture in the sense of a mass of interconnected objects and behaviours. The context in which I was speaking was the phylogenetic origins of language. Treating language as a natural process subject to objective analysis just like geological formations or the structure of ecosystems, or whatever, ruled out Semiotics as providing the explanation for why language is essentially *not* just a system of signs,- that a chimp screeching in fright and causing another chimp to run away, is essentially different from a chimp calling out: "There's a wolf coming!" and another chimp responding by calling out "Stop playing games, Charlie! You scared the life out of me." Even old Spinoza took the essential issue, not to *have *emotions, but to be able to *control *one's emotions and one's response to emotions. Whatever your ontological position, there remains a real puzzle: how did homo sapiens sapiens evolve? What is it that was the essential driver in forming our unquestionably unique species. Many answer that it is language, and it is not unreasonable to re-pose the original question: how did language-using evolve? If the analytical tools you bring to bear can't make a fundamental distinction between language-using and any other semiotic process, then that tool is of no use for the task at hand. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 10/12/2018 9:15 am, James Ma wrote: > Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said: > "Language is an essential part of a specific form of life, > namely human life, in which consciousness mediates between > stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in > itself be a sign".?I found this interesting - would it > encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a creation of > minds or mental states? Are you saying that consciousness > bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the > experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful? > > More specifically, linking consciousness with language, do > you consider both the intentionality of consciousness and > the linguistic structures as described in analytical > philosophy (I guess you're more of an analytical > philosopher)? I wondered, in your view,?what would?serve > as?a foundation for knowledge, if human subjects had no > recourse to the narratives of "transcendent being" or > "higher being". I'm interested in Wittgenstein and > Husserl, both of whom examined language and consciousness. > Wittgenstein saw limits in what philosophy could do in > terms of explaining and understanding; Husserl stressed > limits in articulating or communicating consciousness. Can > you comment on this and perhaps how it might be implicated > in your position? > > Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in itself > be a sign"? As I see it, consciousness is the signifying > and the signified, both of which evolve as consciousness > evolves. In Peirce's terms, consciousness is a semiosis. > > In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the Peircean > sense is "not language". Reading Peirce, I've found it > intriguing that a great deal of his pragmaticism (as > distinguished from William James's pragmatism) can be > packed into his semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might > be?studied against the backdrop of his pragmaticism (which > provides a conceptual basis for his tripartite of the > sign). As I see it, Peircean pragmatism is?also a theory > of meaning, indicative of the role of language in making > clear what we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is meant > by "going around the tree" in William James's "squirrel on > the tree"). > > This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far on > Xmca-I. I'm busy again from tomorrow but will be?joyfully > watching how it develops in the background! > > James > > > */________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa / > > / > / > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 04:35, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like > Peirce's semiotics, take the subject (in the sense of > a moral agent) out of a process have an important > place in analysis. The same could be said of > Structuralism and even Marx's Capital (though it could > be argued that for Marx capital is a subject). One can > of course study language from a purely structural > standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my > point is that language (languaging?) is not just a > system of signs. Language is an essential part of a > specific form of life, namely human life, in which > consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, > and that consciousness cannot in itself be a sign. > > I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated > group, or something of the kind. Peirce is fine. But > subjects do not (generally) create words /de novo/; > interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use > of an already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics > /can/ be used to analyse that objectively-existing > culture, but close as it comes to a concept of the > Subject, I don't think it can get there. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! >> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly >> "behind"!) >> >> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it >> makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard to >> Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's notion of >> the self? I believe you were the one who shared it >> with me but from your tone here I assume that you >> feel that it falls short in theorizing a >> "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? >> Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the >> theory? >> >> -greg >> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might >> turn the metaphor back to the original thread by >> noting(!) that we are simply "playing different tunes"? >> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am >> thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great >> advantage in that it does /not /include the >> category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | >> interpretant | object). This means that it can be >> used for the analysis of /objective/ processes. >> When used in this way it does not imply >> "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's >> semiotics was the basis of my objection to >> James's observation. Speech and gesture has a >> subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your >> very erudite response is that I think we should >> not be too apologetic about using the concept of >> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but >> in all human interactions we deduce the state of >> minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is >> incomprehensible without the presumption that it >> is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we >> become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether you'd >>> prefer to be critical or charitable toward >>> linguistic anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a few >>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, >>> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you >>> are right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that >>> linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing >>> with precisely the things that you are talking >>> about. Most of the ones that I know are >>> anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >>> are grappling with issues of practice, not just >>> studying formal structures that exist in >>> someplace called "the mind" (where is that >>> exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults >>> to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is >>> to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is >>> to say, a mere documenter of language variation >>> across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in >>> fact very mindful of understanding the practical >>> consequences of semiotic forms. In his book >>> Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >>> point that you are making through his deployment >>> of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a >>> means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >>> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" >>> (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you can >>> just dispense with linguistic anthropology and >>> all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >>> charitable approach might suggest that we should >>> at least acknowledge their project. That's all I >>> was hoping to do. I figured that there might be >>> a few who are interested, but most on the >>> listserve will find that it wasn't worth >>> investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as >>> someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm >>> very sensitive to the fact that learning the >>> language of an entirely new system is a major >>> time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated when >>> we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human >>> agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., >>> Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I >>> understand that you are very much a humanist and >>> don't like this approach for some very >>> fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed >>> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >>> best person to make the case for this position - >>> unless you are really genuinely interested. And >>> besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >>> rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> So I gather confirmation from your message, >>> Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, >>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>> interest in talking about such things as >>> psychological functioning" and therefore, it >>> seems to me, little interest in what people >>> do as well as what they think. In other >>> words, the turn to seeing language as a >>> system of Peircean signs is an entirely >>> *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a >>> brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys >>> can be formally analysed with the same set >>> of concepts as the babbling of a group of >>> humans in conversation. But this is purely >>> formal, superficial and obscures what is >>> expressed and transacted in the human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such >>> formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean >>> Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and >>> often insights come out from such formal >>> disciplines relevant to the real world >>> (mathematics being the supreme example), but >>> ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the >>> question of how it is that humans alone have >>> language by saying that everything has >>> language, even inanimate processes (and this >>> is how I interpret the equation of language >>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than >>> missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal processes >>> lead to grave errors is the Language >>> Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by >>> Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And >>> yet to hold that an actual biological, >>> neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all >>> human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian >>> evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not >>> both. Which tells me that there is a problem >>> with this formal analysis, even though I >>> gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>> correctly parse an ordinary language >>> question I ask it and deliver very relevant >>> answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to >>>> this group for precisely the reasons Helena >>>> mentioned previously (the proliferation of >>>> technical languages in different fields and >>>> the time-intensive labor of translating >>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of >>>> thinking from one of these fields to the >>>> next). Add the fact that there are few who >>>> have much interest in one of the field of >>>> linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling >>>> anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a >>>> tangle of words in its own right), and this >>>> means the following post will likely remain >>>> an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>>> ill intentions but simply because this is >>>> an impossible situation for anyone to >>>> commit to learning an entirely new language >>>> for talking about language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you >>>> would point to (!) the indexical and iconic >>>> potentials of SPOKEN language while noting >>>> that this flattens the oft-made distinction >>>> between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>>> dominant ideology of language tends to >>>> assume that spoken language is (only?) >>>> symbolic and gesture is only indexical and >>>> iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and >>>> iconic functions offers us a way into >>>> seeing how spoken language is also >>>> indexical and iconic (as opposed to >>>> Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - >>>> e.g., in the Course he dismisses >>>> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" >>>> (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson >>>> was one of the first to point to the >>>> problem of this dominant ideology of >>>> language, and Michael Silverstein has made >>>> a rather substantial career off of this >>>> simple point, first elaborated in his >>>> famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since >>>> then in numerous other works. Many others >>>> working in linguistic anthropology have >>>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this >>>> project by exploring the indexical and >>>> iconic nature of spoken language in the >>>> concepts of "indexicality" and >>>> "iconization". More recently linguistic >>>> anthropologists have considered the >>>> processes by which sign-functions can shift >>>> from one function to another - e.g., >>>> rhematization - from indexical or symbolic >>>> to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's >>>> work), and iconization - from symbolic or >>>> iconic to indexical?(see Webb Keane's and >>>> Chris Ball's work). And others have looked >>>> at more basic features of sign-functioning >>>> such as the realization of qualia (see Lily >>>> Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>>> issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the present >>>> list serve is that the processes being >>>> described by these linguistic >>>> anthropologists are fundamental to >>>> understanding human psychological >>>> functioning and yet most of the >>>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>>> otherwise, don't have much interest in >>>> talking about such things as psychological >>>> functioning (one exception here is Paul >>>> Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, >>>> Subject, Self - although beware that his >>>> writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a >>>> particularly productive intersection for >>>> development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY >>>> SHONERD >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I >>>>> discussion to be exploratory and free >>>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of >>>>> subjectness and subjectless. When it >>>>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we >>>>> will switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so >>>>> satisfying I don?t want to let go >>>>> of it, so I hope I am not tiring >>>>> you or others with all the >>>>> connections I find. But, in the >>>>> spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll >>>>> just keep on talking and remark on >>>>> how the duck tail hair cut is a >>>>> rich gesture, an important concept >>>>> in this subject line. Gesture is >>>>> an aspect of communication present >>>>> in many species. Hence, the >>>>> importance of gesture as a >>>>> rudimentary form of language with >>>>> evolutionary results in human >>>>> language. Maybe this is a reach, >>>>> but I see the business of quotes >>>>> in the subject line now taking >>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and >>>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, >>>>> contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech >>>>> and Language as an issue of >>>>> gesture. Language, written >>>>> language in this case, is limited >>>>> in its ability to provide nuance. >>>>> Writing without quotes ?gestured?, >>>>> pointed to to author sources >>>>> familar in the day that Vygotsky >>>>> wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, >>>>> psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, >>>>> wrote that two charges of language >>>>> where in ?tension?: 1) make >>>>> yourself clear and 2) get it said >>>>> before losing the thread of >>>>> thinking and talking. Gesture, I >>>>> would like to argue, is an aspect >>>>> of discourse that helps to address >>>>> this tension. A turn (in >>>>> discourse) is a gesture, with >>>>> temporal constraints that belie >>>>> the idea that a single turn can >>>>> ever be totally clear in and of >>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing >>>>> now, is always dialogic, even a >>>>> whole book, is a turn in >>>>> discourse. And we keep on posting >>>>> our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot >>>>>> on?for this?subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is >>>>>> fabulous. Funnily >>>>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>>> would?always?like?his 9-year-old >>>>>> son to have?because he has much >>>>>> thicker hair than most boys. >>>>>> Unfortunately?last year the boy >>>>>> had a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off >>>>>> by?the school?authority (in >>>>>> China).?However,?my brother >>>>>> has?managed to >>>>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a year >>>>>> during?the boy's?long school >>>>>> holiday in winter and summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of >>>>>> conversation are predictable due >>>>>> to participants' intersubjective >>>>>> awareness of the subject. >>>>>> Yet,?the nuances of conversation >>>>>> (just like each individual's >>>>>> ducktail unique?to himself)?are >>>>>> unpredictable because of the >>>>>> waywardness of?our mind. What's >>>>>> more, such?nuances?create the >>>>>> fluidity of conversation which >>>>>> makes it?difficult (or >>>>>> even?unnecessary) to?predict?what >>>>>> comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>>> whole point that >>>>>> keeps?us?talking, as Alfredo >>>>>> pointed out?earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The >>>>>> images of the mandarin drake >>>>>> reminded me of a hair style >>>>>> popularin the late 50s when I >>>>>> was in high school (grades >>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts >>>>>> images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the link >>>>>> is of Elvis Presley, an alpha >>>>>> male high school boys sought >>>>>> to emulate. Note that some of >>>>>> the photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of >>>>>> issues of gender fluidity >>>>>> these days. I don?t remember >>>>>> when women started taking on >>>>>> the hair style. Since I >>>>>> mentioned Elvis Presley, this >>>>>> post counts as relevant to >>>>>> the subject line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, >>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just >>>>>>> thought you might like to see: >>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ? 2018?11?27??? >>>>>>> 19:30??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, >>>>>>> James, and providing it >>>>>>> is a move on this >>>>>>> subject line that >>>>>>> instantiates nicely >>>>>>> Gee?s conception of >>>>>>> discourse. Thanks for >>>>>>> your thoughtful and >>>>>>> helpful response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the >>>>>>>> info on Derek >>>>>>>> Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>>> interesting things is >>>>>>>> his conception of >>>>>>>> displacement as the >>>>>>>> hallmark of language, >>>>>>>> whether iconic, >>>>>>>> indexical or symbolic. >>>>>>>> In the case of Chinese >>>>>>>> language, the sounds >>>>>>>> are decontextualised or >>>>>>>> sublimated over time to >>>>>>>> become something more >>>>>>>> integrated into the >>>>>>>> words themselves as >>>>>>>> ideographs. Some of >>>>>>>> Bickerton's ideas are >>>>>>>> suggestive of the study >>>>>>>> of protolanguage as an >>>>>>>> /a priori /process, >>>>>>>> involving scrupulous >>>>>>>> deduction. This reminds >>>>>>>> me of methods used in >>>>>>>> diachronic linguistics, >>>>>>>> which I felt are >>>>>>>> relevant to CHAT just >>>>>>>> as much as those used >>>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" >>>>>>>> and "intramental", I >>>>>>>> can see your point. In >>>>>>>> fact I don't?take >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> "interpsychological" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>> categories?to >>>>>>>> be?dichotomies or >>>>>>>> binary opposites. >>>>>>>> Whenever it comes to >>>>>>>> their relationship, I >>>>>>>> tend to have a >>>>>>>> post-structuralism >>>>>>>> imagery present in my >>>>>>>> mind, particularly >>>>>>>> related to a Derridean >>>>>>>> stance for the >>>>>>>> conception of ideas >>>>>>>> (i.e.any idea is not >>>>>>>> entirely distinct from >>>>>>>> other ideas in terms of >>>>>>>> the "thing itself"; >>>>>>>> rather, it entails a >>>>>>>> supplement of the other >>>>>>>> idea which is?already >>>>>>>> embedded in the self). >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's two >>>>>>>> categoriesare >>>>>>>> relational >>>>>>>> (dialectical); they are >>>>>>>> somehow like a pair of >>>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see >>>>>>>> attached image). I also >>>>>>>> like to think that each >>>>>>>> of these categories is >>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" >>>>>>>> (here discourse is in >>>>>>>> tune with James Gee's >>>>>>>> conception of discourse >>>>>>>> as a patchwork of >>>>>>>> actions, interactions, >>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings >>>>>>>> etc). I recall Barbara >>>>>>>> Rogoff talking about >>>>>>>> there being no boundary >>>>>>>> between the external >>>>>>>> and the internal or the >>>>>>>> boundary being blurred >>>>>>>> (during her >>>>>>>> seminar?in?the Graduate >>>>>>>> School of Education at >>>>>>>> Bristol in 2001 while?I >>>>>>>> was?doing my PhD). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at >>>>>>>> 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was >>>>>>>> Derek Bickerton >>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>>> who argued that >>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? >>>>>>>> developed from >>>>>>>> stringing together >>>>>>>> turns in verbal >>>>>>>> interaction. The >>>>>>>> wiki on Bickerton I >>>>>>>> have linked is >>>>>>>> short and raises >>>>>>>> issues discussed in >>>>>>>> this subject line >>>>>>>> and in the subject >>>>>>>> line on Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me >>>>>>>> back to the >>>>>>>> circularity of >>>>>>>> discourse and the >>>>>>>> development of >>>>>>>> discourse >>>>>>>> competence. >>>>>>>> Usage-based >>>>>>>> grammar. >>>>>>>> Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>> that complex >>>>>>>> grammar developed >>>>>>>> out of the pidgins >>>>>>>> of our ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do I >>>>>>>> see a chicken/egg >>>>>>>> problem that for >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>> intramental forms >>>>>>>> of semiotic >>>>>>>> mediation is better >>>>>>>> understood by >>>>>>>> examining the types >>>>>>>> of intermental >>>>>>>> processes?? I don?t >>>>>>>> know. Could one say >>>>>>>> that inner speech >>>>>>>> is the vehicle for >>>>>>>> turning discourse >>>>>>>> into grammar? >>>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a >>>>>>>> strong biological >>>>>>>> component to human >>>>>>>> language, though I >>>>>>>> don?t remember if >>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. >>>>>>>> I hope this is >>>>>>>> coherent thinking >>>>>>>> in the context of >>>>>>>> our conversation. >>>>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, >>>>>>>>> at 3:22 PM, James >>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree >>>>>>>>> with Greg - >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> is relevant and >>>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> transcends >>>>>>>>> "outlines"?or >>>>>>>>> perhaps sublimates >>>>>>>>> the "muddledness" >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" >>>>>>>>> of a conversation >>>>>>>>> (as in Bateson's >>>>>>>>> metalogue) into >>>>>>>>> what Rommetveit >>>>>>>>> termed?the "draft >>>>>>>>> of a contract". >>>>>>>>> This is because >>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>>> explicit and >>>>>>>>> external what >>>>>>>>> would otherwise >>>>>>>>> remain implicit >>>>>>>>> and internal. >>>>>>>>> Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>>> that?private >>>>>>>>> worlds can only be >>>>>>>>> transcended up to >>>>>>>>> a certain level >>>>>>>>> and interlocutors >>>>>>>>> need to agree >>>>>>>>> upon?the?draft of >>>>>>>>> a contract with >>>>>>>>> which the >>>>>>>>> communication can >>>>>>>>> be initiated. In >>>>>>>>> the spirit of >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, he uses >>>>>>>>> a "pluralistic" >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>>> approach to human >>>>>>>>> communication - >>>>>>>>> and especially to >>>>>>>>> the problem of >>>>>>>>> linguistic >>>>>>>>> mediation and >>>>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>>>> functioning, with >>>>>>>>> reference to >>>>>>>>> semantics, >>>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For >>>>>>>>> him, >>>>>>>>> the?intramental >>>>>>>>> forms of semiotic >>>>>>>>> mediation?is >>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>> understood?by >>>>>>>>> examining the >>>>>>>>> types of >>>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think?these >>>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>>> processes >>>>>>>>> (just?like >>>>>>>>> intramental ones) >>>>>>>>> can be boiled down >>>>>>>>> or distilled?to >>>>>>>>> signs and symbols >>>>>>>>> with which >>>>>>>>> interlocutors are >>>>>>>>> in harmony >>>>>>>>> during?a >>>>>>>>> conversation or >>>>>>>>> any other joint >>>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov >>>>>>>>> 2018 at 08:09, >>>>>>>>> Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's >>>>>>>>> remarks about >>>>>>>>> no directors >>>>>>>>> and symphonic >>>>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>>> me?of >>>>>>>>> G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>>> metalogue "why >>>>>>>>> do things have >>>>>>>>> outlines" >>>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>>> it raises the >>>>>>>>> question of >>>>>>>>> units and >>>>>>>>> elements, of >>>>>>>>> how a song, a >>>>>>>>> dance,?a poem, >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>>> to make sense, >>>>>>>>> they must have >>>>>>>>> a recognizable >>>>>>>>> outline, even >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> improvisation; >>>>>>>>> they must be >>>>>>>>> wholes, or >>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>> wholes. That >>>>>>>>> makes them >>>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>>> yet, when you >>>>>>>>> are immersed >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>>> the fact that >>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>>> what comes >>>>>>>>> next is the >>>>>>>>> whole point >>>>>>>>> that?keep >>>>>>>>> us?talking, >>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> on behalf of >>>>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 >>>>>>>>> November 2018 >>>>>>>>> 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended >>>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, >>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: >>>>>>>>> language and >>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>> I?d like to >>>>>>>>> add to the >>>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> discourse, >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> itself, is >>>>>>>>> staged. There >>>>>>>>> are performers >>>>>>>>> and and an >>>>>>>>> audience made >>>>>>>>> up partly of >>>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>>> themselves. >>>>>>>>> How many are >>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I >>>>>>>>> am usually? >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>>> director, but >>>>>>>>> there are >>>>>>>>> leaders. There >>>>>>>>> is symphonic >>>>>>>>> potential. And >>>>>>>>> even gestural >>>>>>>>> potential, >>>>>>>>> making the >>>>>>>>> chat a dance. >>>>>>>>> All on line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, at 9:05 >>>>>>>>>> PM, mike cole >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For many >>>>>>>>>> years I used >>>>>>>>>> the work of >>>>>>>>>> Ellen >>>>>>>>>> Dissenyake to >>>>>>>>>> teach comm >>>>>>>>>> classes about >>>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>>> She is quite >>>>>>>>>> unusual in >>>>>>>>>> ways that >>>>>>>>>> might find >>>>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov >>>>>>>>>> 17, 2018 at >>>>>>>>>> 2:16 PM James >>>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>>>>> Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>>>> terms, >>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>> each of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> constructed >>>>>>>>>> internally >>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>> signified, >>>>>>>>>> i.e. his >>>>>>>>>> or her >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> When it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> vocalised >>>>>>>>>> (spoken >>>>>>>>>> out), it >>>>>>>>>> becomes >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> signifier >>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>> listener. >>>>>>>>>> What's >>>>>>>>>> more, >>>>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> compose a >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>>> each of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> signifiers >>>>>>>>>> turns >>>>>>>>>> into a >>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>> signified >>>>>>>>>> ? a >>>>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>>> woven >>>>>>>>>> into the >>>>>>>>>> fabric of >>>>>>>>>> meaning >>>>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the >>>>>>>>>> way, in >>>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>>> language, >>>>>>>>>> words for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> have long >>>>>>>>>> been used >>>>>>>>>> inseparably. >>>>>>>>>> As I see >>>>>>>>>> it,?they >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>>> indexed >>>>>>>>>> to, or >>>>>>>>>> adjusted >>>>>>>>>> to allow >>>>>>>>>> for, the >>>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>>> emotions, >>>>>>>>>> actions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> interactions >>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>>> experiencing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. >>>>>>>>>> Here are >>>>>>>>>> some idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> singing club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> citizens >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> ancient >>>>>>>>>> Yan and >>>>>>>>>> Zhao good >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>> hence >>>>>>>>>> referring >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>> songs and >>>>>>>>>> dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- a >>>>>>>>>> church or >>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>> set up >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /*James >>>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, >>>>>>>>>> 17 Nov >>>>>>>>>> 2018 at >>>>>>>>>> 19:08, >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> informed >>>>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> Rob, >>>>>>>>>> I can >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>>> Anthems >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> stand >>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> singing, >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> death >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> mood >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> rhythmic >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>> dance >>>>>>>>>> are a >>>>>>>>>> norm. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> ?wonder >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> terms >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>>>> stages >>>>>>>>>> ? of >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>>> Would >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>>>> constitute >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>>>> contained >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> music? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> ? the >>>>>>>>>> video >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> reminds >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> teaching >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> learners >>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> in OD >>>>>>>>>> settings) >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> instructed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> as a >>>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>> turns >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> say a >>>>>>>>>> sentence, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>> (depending >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> instructor >>>>>>>>>> ), >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>> linking >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>> person >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same, >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>>>> More >>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>> stories >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> dynamics >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> analysed, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>> cases, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> trauma >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> shared.? >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> suppose >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>> of it >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>> *On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* >>>>>>>>>> Friday, >>>>>>>>>> 16 >>>>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> 21:01 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> C. >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> told >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> sing >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>>>> beats >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> of you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does >>>>>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>> or is >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 17:29, >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> going. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> Theories >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>>>> Hull, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> video >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>>>> wove >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> singers >>>>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> drumming >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>>>>> 20 >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>>>> ahead >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> seemed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> studied >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture? >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>>>> looks. >>>>>>>>>> Yet >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> listen >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> music, >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> drum >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> Sonata >>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>>>> (they >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Coen >>>>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> opens >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> theme >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> says, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>>> aloud >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>>>> book, >>>>>>>>>> ?I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (18) >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> (1996) >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>>>> [1080] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>>>> CA >>>>>>>>>> 94707 >>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blog >>>>>>>>>> US/ >>>>>>>>>> Viet >>>>>>>>>> Nam: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:56 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>>>> ?at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> dialog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> intended >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> addressee >>>>>>>>>> only. >>>>>>>>>> It is >>>>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> received >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> error, >>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>> notify >>>>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> destroy >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> copy >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> permission >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University. >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>>>>> signatories >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> competent >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> enter >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> recipients >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>> advised >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> content >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> legally >>>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> author, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> outsiders >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> subject >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>>>> African >>>>>>>>>> Law >>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> agrees >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> >>>> 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 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181210/0e1a0f91/attachment-0001.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Dec 10 17:21:12 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:21:12 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] language and semiotics In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: I'm re-posting this. I know there are a number of linguists on this list. I cannot be the first person to raise this question. ------------------- Thank you for raising this issue, Greg. I have been participating in an academia.edu session on my origins of language paper concurrently with little overlap between participants. However, I am struck by the persistence of this claim, viz., that language is a system of signs, and sign-use is universal in the animal kingdom (and Peirce would correctly say: "not only animals, but all processes without exception"). The issue is not one of Peirce's Semiotics, but simply the view that the subjective element is irrelevant to language. Can some of the linguists on this list tell me how this claim is usually dealt with. Vygotsky is clear enough (as I read him anyway): "a word without meaning is just a sound" but *how does linguistics more widely rebut the claim that language, however simple* (i.e., e.g. a one-word sentence lacking recursion) *is not simply a sign**-system*? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181211/726b1670/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Dec 11 15:27:53 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:27:53 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been having the Moscow Summer School down here in Sydney, where the summers come around Christmastime and you can lecture in your bare feet....there is a little post scriptum to try to make it relevant to what Andy's thinking. But right now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to come back to music....) Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a Subject, because we don't really distinguish between reception and production of signs. (The model has to be kept neutral, in order to be parsimonious.) Is that Peircean, or Saussurean? Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a sign without an object, since Euclidean lines that have no width and infinite extension do not actually exist). Then he says that a bullet hole in piece of moulding (he has in mind the sort of thing you see on nineteenth century buildings) is an index (because it is a sign without an interpretant). I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? David Kellogg Sangmyung University PS: One difference between scientific concepts and everyday ones is that the former develop through differentiation rather than just adding once generalized representation to another through experience. I don't think it's an absolute difference: I think that differentiation is often a product of reflection (refraction, perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) and that is, after all, one kind of representation and one kind of experience, but it's a special kind. Differentiation is finding differences that make a difference (Bateson). Both Vygotsky and Peirce differentiate signs, but in somewhat different ways, and it seems to me that it's a difference that makes a difference. Vygotsky differentiates signs into signals (the red leaves are a signal of winter) and symbols (the red light is a traffic light symbol). The difference is whether consciousness is involved or not. I think that Vygotsky would reject the idea that consciousness can be reduced to a "second signal system": that was a tactical maneuver to try to make his work compatible with vulgar behaviorism in the fifties. Note that even the idea that consciousness is a "reaction to a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of a perezhivanie" is not reducible to a "second signal system" so long as you understand that signals do not involve consciousness. Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, and thirdness: icons (where no object is required), indexes (where no interpretant is required) and symbols (where alll three are present and accounted for in the meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a psychological distinction, and it needs to be interpreted psychologically before we can talk about language. But there are a lot of linguists who would disagree with that, because there is a strong desire to abolish psychology in linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). Music education has struggled with this for a long time: is music icon, index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed it was an icon, and you teach children to imagine their bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed it was an index, and you teach it as result of a practice which can be interpersonal or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as language and taught us to teach music as a literacy. But of course then music is meaning, not sounding. dk On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson wrote: > (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the > "different" game/tune) > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! >> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) >> >> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what >> you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's >> notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but >> from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in >> theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with >> regard to the shortcomings of the theory? >> >> -greg >> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor >> back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing >> different tunes"? >> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) >>> Thank you. >>> >>> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not >>> *include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | >>> interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of >>> *objective* processes. When used in this way it does not imply >>> "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my >>> objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >>> >>> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is >>> that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of >>> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >>> we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >>> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the >>> presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become >>> Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or >>> charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor >>> Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are >>> right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in >>> fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of >>> the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >>> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures >>> that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >>> fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I >>> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >>> documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know >>> are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of >>> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >>> point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >>> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >>> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >>> semiotics would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with >>> linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >>> charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their >>> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few >>> who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't >>> worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >>> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the >>> language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only >>> worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of >>> the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., >>> Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much >>> a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. >>> I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >>> best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really >>> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >>> rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >>>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>>> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >>>> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >>>> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >>>> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >>>> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >>>> transacted in the human babble. >>>> >>>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >>>> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >>>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >>>> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >>>> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >>>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >>>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>>> >>>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >>>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >>>> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >>>> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >>>> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >>>> relevant answers. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >>>> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >>>> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >>>> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >>>> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >>>> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >>>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>>> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >>>> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >>>> language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >>>> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>>> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >>>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>>> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >>>> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >>>> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >>>> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>>> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >>>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >>>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >>>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >>>> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >>>> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >>>> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>>> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >>>> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>>> issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >>>> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >>>> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >>>> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>>> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >>>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >>>> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >>>> for development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right on, James! >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and >>>>> free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. >>>>> When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of >>>>>> it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I >>>>>> find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and >>>>>> remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important >>>>>> concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present >>>>>> in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of >>>>>> language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a >>>>>> reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking >>>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right >>>>>> now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of >>>>>> gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability >>>>>> to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>>>> winter and summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of >>>>>>> a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades >>>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts images >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the >>>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>>>> sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words >>>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an *a priori *process, involving >>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic >>>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used >>>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) >>>>>>>>> can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which >>>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint >>>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181212/441a2741/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Dec 11 15:59:54 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:59:54 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: <29b04c56-efd7-c2f9-a1fa-69b4ca957f56@marxists.org> Yes, Peirce is very powerful. As I understand it, a sign transforms itself from an utterrer to an interpreter, that's how he incorporates signalling into the object | sign | interpretant triad. And he sees human subjectivity as a process of semiosis which is connected semiotically to all the other semiotic processes in the universe.? If anyone could adequately represent language as a system of signs, it would be Peirce. The issue I am raisin is Similar to Spinoza's representation of God, including human consciousness as causality. Peirce triadic structure is superior to Spinioza's diadic structure because it allows for mediation, but the problem is the same. Thank you for your observations, David. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/12/2018 10:27 am, David Kellogg wrote: > (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been > having the Moscow Summer School down here in Sydney, where > the summers come around Christmastime and you can lecture > in your bare feet....there is a little post scriptum to > try to make it relevant to what Andy's thinking. But right > now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to come back > to music....) > > Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a > Subject, because we don't really distinguish between > reception and production of signs. (The model has to be > kept neutral, in order to be parsimonious.) Is that > Peircean, or Saussurean? > > Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a > sign without an object, since Euclidean lines that have no > width and infinite extension do not actually exist). Then > he says that a bullet hole in piece of moulding (he has in > mind the sort of thing you see on nineteenth century > buildings) is an index (because it is a sign without an > interpretant). > > I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > PS: One difference between?scientific concepts and > everyday ones is that?the former develop through > differentiation rather than just adding once?generalized > representation to another through experience. I don't > think it's an absolute difference:?I think that > differentiation is often a product of reflection > (refraction, perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) and > that is, after all, one kind of representation and one > kind of experience, but it's a special kind. > > Differentiation is finding differences that make a > difference (Bateson). Both Vygotsky and Peirce > differentiate signs, but in somewhat different ways, and > it seems to me that it's a difference that makes a > difference. > > Vygotsky differentiates signs?into signals (the red leaves > are a signal of winter) and symbols (the red light is a > traffic light symbol). The difference is whether > consciousness is involved or not. I think that Vygotsky > would reject the idea that consciousness can be reduced to > a "second signal system": that was a tactical?maneuver to > try to make his work compatible with?vulgar behaviorism?in > the fifties. Note that?even the idea that consciousness is > a "reaction to a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of a > perezhivanie" is not reducible to a "second signal system" > so long as you understand that signals?do not involve > consciousness. > > Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, > and thirdness: icons (where no object is required), > indexes (where no interpretant is required) and symbols > (where alll three are present and accounted for in the > meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a > psychological distinction, and it needs to be interpreted > psychologically before we can talk about language. But > there are a lot of linguists who would disagree with that, > because there is a strong desire to abolish psychology in > linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). > > Music education has struggled with this for a long time: > is music icon, index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed > it was an icon, and you teach children to imagine their > bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed it was an index, and you > teach it as result of a practice which can be > interpersonal or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as > language and taught us to teach music as a literacy. But > of course then music is meaning, not sounding. > > dk > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one > playing the "different" game/tune) > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly > "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it > makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard > to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's > notion of the self? I believe you were the one who > shared it with me but from your tone here I assume > that you feel that it falls short in theorizing a > "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? > Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of > the theory? > > -greg > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we > might turn the metaphor back to the original > thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing > different tunes"? > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am > thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. > > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great > advantage in that it does /not /include the > category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | > interpretant | object). This means that it can > be used for the analysis of /objective/ > processes. When used in this way it does not > imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of > Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my > objection to James's observation. Speech and > gesture has a subject. > > The other minor point I would make about your > very erudite response is that I think we > should not be too apologetic about using the > concept of "mind." True, mind is not a > sensible entity, but in all human interactions > we deduce the state of minds from the > observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific > or everyday) human behaviour is > incomprehensible without the presumption that > it is mindful to this or that extent. > Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and > Chomsky would murder us! :) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Andy, >> >> My short response would depend on whether >> you'd prefer to be critical or charitable >> toward linguistic anthropologists. >> >> The critical approach would say that with a >> few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul >> Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among >> others), you are right. >> >> The charitable approach would say that >> linguistic anthropologists are in fact >> dealing with precisely the things that you >> are talking about. Most of the ones that I >> know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. >> Most of them are grappling with issues of >> practice, not just studying formal structures >> that exist in someplace called "the mind" >> (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the >> greatest insults to the linguistic >> anthropologists that I know is to call them a >> "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a >> mere documenter of language variation across >> the globe. Most of the ones I know are in >> fact very mindful of understanding the >> practical consequences of semiotic forms. In >> his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes >> precisely the point that you are making >> through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping >> semiosis as a lived practice rather than one >> that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's >> approach to semiotics would suggest). >> >> The critical approach is nice because you can >> just dispense with linguistic anthropology >> and all their gobbly-gook jargon as >> irrelevant. The charitable approach might >> suggest that we should at least acknowledge >> their project. That's all I was hoping to do. >> I figured that there might be a few who are >> interested, but most on the listserve will >> find that it wasn't worth investing the time >> - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive >> to the fact that learning the language of an >> entirely new system is a major time >> commitment and only worth it in rare cases). >> >> I think things get a bit more complicated >> when we get to the issue of the semiosis of >> non-human agents that you seemed to be poking >> at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests >> Think). I understand that you are very much a >> humanist and don't like this approach for >> some very fundamental reasons. I'm not >> entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) >> and so I'm not the best person to make the >> case for this position - unless you are >> really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm >> already well beyond your one screen rule! >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >> > > wrote: >> >> So I gather confirmation from your >> message, Greg: "most of the >> anthropologists I know, linguistic or >> otherwise, don't have much interest in >> talking about such things as >> psychological functioning" and therefore, >> it seems to me, little interest in what >> people do as well as what they think. In >> other words, the turn to seeing language >> as a system of Peircean signs is an >> entirely *formal* project. Yes, the >> babbling of a brook or the babbling of a >> band of monkeys can be formally analysed >> with the same set of concepts as the >> babbling of a group of humans in >> conversation. But this is purely formal, >> superficial and obscures what is >> expressed and transacted in the human babble. >> >> I can understand the fascination in such >> formal disciplines, I accept that >> Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of >> analysis, and often insights come out >> from such formal disciplines relevant to >> the real world (mathematics being the >> supreme example), but ....! One really >> has to keep in mind that words are not >> Peircean signs. To answer the question of >> how it is that humans alone have language >> by saying that everything has language, >> even inanimate processes (and this is how >> I interpret the equation of language with >> Peircean signs), is somewhat more than >> missing the point. >> >> As an example of how such formal >> processes lead to grave errors is the >> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to >> exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of >> language. And yet to hold that an actual >> biological, neuronal formation as a LAD >> exists in all human beings in quite >> inconsistent with the foundations of >> biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. >> Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. >> Which tells me that there is a problem >> with this formal analysis, even though I >> gasp in wonder every time Google manages >> to correctly parse an ordinary language >> question I ask it and deliver very >> relevant answers. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to >>> this group for precisely the reasons >>> Helena mentioned previously (the >>> proliferation of technical languages in >>> different fields and the time-intensive >>> labor of translating terms/meanings of >>> entire systems of thinking from one of >>> these fields to the next). Add the fact >>> that there are few who have much >>> interest in one of the field of >>> linguistic anthropology (and esp. how >>> ling anthro has taken up Peicean >>> semiotics - a tangle of words in its own >>> right), and this means the following >>> post will likely remain an orphan (not >>> at all because of anyone's ill >>> intentions but simply because this is an >>> impossible situation for anyone to >>> commit to learning an entirely new >>> language for talking about language!).] >>> >>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that >>> you would point to (!) the indexical and >>> iconic potentials of SPOKEN language >>> while noting that this flattens the >>> oft-made distinction between gesture and >>> the spoken word? Our dominant ideology >>> of language tends to assume that spoken >>> language is (only?) symbolic and gesture >>> is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's >>> notion of indexical and iconic functions >>> offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>> language is also indexical and iconic >>> (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course >>> he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and >>> "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to >>> his project). >>> >>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman >>> Jakobson was one of the first to point >>> to the problem of this dominant ideology >>> of language, and Michael Silverstein has >>> made a rather substantial career off of >>> this simple point, first elaborated in >>> his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and >>> since then in numerous other works. Many >>> others working in linguistic >>> anthropology have spent the last 40 >>> years expanding on this project by >>> exploring the indexical and iconic >>> nature of spoken language in the >>> concepts of "indexicality" and >>> "iconization". More recently linguistic >>> anthropologists have considered the >>> processes by which sign-functions can >>> shift from one function to another - >>> e.g., rhematization - from indexical or >>> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and >>> Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - >>> from symbolic or iconic to >>> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris >>> Ball's work). And others have looked at >>> more basic features of sign-functioning >>> such as the realization of qualia (see >>> Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' >>> special issue in Anthro theory). >>> >>> The relevance of all this for the >>> present list serve is that the processes >>> being described by these linguistic >>> anthropologists are fundamental to >>> understanding human psychological >>> functioning and yet most of the >>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>> otherwise, don't have much interest in >>> talking about such things as >>> psychological functioning (one exception >>> here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his >>> book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - >>> although beware that his writing is just >>> as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I >>> suspect that this could be a >>> particularly productive intersection for >>> development. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -greg >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY >>> SHONERD >> > wrote: >>> >>> Right on, James! >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James >>>> Ma >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I >>>> discussion to be exploratory and >>>> free style, allowing for the >>>> coexistence of subjectness and >>>> subjectless. When it comes to >>>> scholarly writing, we know we will >>>> switch the code. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> HENRY SHONERD >>> > ? >>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>> >>>> James, >>>> This conversation has been so >>>> satisfying I don?t want to let >>>> go of it, so I hope I am not >>>> tiring you or others with all >>>> the connections I find. But, in >>>> the spirit of Alfredo?s post, >>>> I?ll just keep on talking and >>>> remark on how the duck tail >>>> hair cut is a rich gesture, an >>>> important concept in this >>>> subject line. Gesture is an >>>> aspect of communication present >>>> in many species. Hence, the >>>> importance of gesture as a >>>> rudimentary form of language >>>> with evolutionary results in >>>> human language. Maybe this is a >>>> reach, but I see the business >>>> of quotes in the subject line >>>> now taking place (Anna >>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly >>>> Perret-Clermont, contributing >>>> right now) on the last chapter >>>> of Vygotsky?s Speech and >>>> Language as an issue of >>>> gesture. Language, written >>>> language in this case, is >>>> limited in its ability to >>>> provide nuance. Writing without >>>> quotes ?gestured?, pointed to >>>> to author sources familar in >>>> the day that Vygotsky wrote, >>>> such that quotes were not >>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, >>>> psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, >>>> wrote that two charges of >>>> language where in ?tension?: 1) >>>> make yourself clear and 2) get >>>> it said before losing the >>>> thread of thinking and talking. >>>> Gesture, I would like to argue, >>>> is an aspect of discourse that >>>> helps to address this tension. >>>> A turn (in discourse) is a >>>> gesture, with temporal >>>> constraints that belie the idea >>>> that a single turn can ever be >>>> totally clear in and of itself. >>>> Writing, as we are doing now, >>>> is always dialogic, even a >>>> whole book, is a turn in >>>> discourse. And we keep on >>>> posting our turns. >>>> Henry >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, >>>>> James Ma >>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot >>>>> on?for this?subject line! >>>>> >>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is >>>>> fabulous. Funnily >>>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>> would?always?like?his >>>>> 9-year-old son to have?because >>>>> he has much thicker hair than >>>>> most boys. Unfortunately?last >>>>> year the boy had >>>>> a?one-day?show off in?the >>>>> classroom?and was?ticked off >>>>> by?the school?authority (in >>>>> China).?However,?my brother >>>>> has?managed to >>>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a >>>>> year during?the boy's?long >>>>> school holiday in winter and >>>>> summer! >>>>> >>>>> I suppose the outlines of >>>>> conversation are predictable >>>>> due to participants' >>>>> intersubjective awareness of >>>>> the subject. Yet,?the nuances >>>>> of conversation (just like >>>>> each individual's ducktail >>>>> unique?to himself)?are >>>>> unpredictable because of the >>>>> waywardness of?our mind. >>>>> What's more, >>>>> such?nuances?create the >>>>> fluidity of conversation which >>>>> makes it?difficult (or >>>>> even?unnecessary) >>>>> to?predict?what comes next - >>>>> this is perhaps the whole >>>>> point that keeps?us?talking, >>>>> as Alfredo pointed out?earlier. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Back at you, James. The >>>>> images of the mandarin >>>>> drake reminded me of a >>>>> hair style popularin the >>>>> late 50s when I was in >>>>> high school (grades 9-12): >>>>> ducktail haircuts images >>>>> . >>>>> One of the photos in the >>>>> link is of Elvis Presley, >>>>> an alpha male high school >>>>> boys sought to emulate. >>>>> Note that some of the >>>>> photos are of women, >>>>> interesting in light of >>>>> issues of gender fluidity >>>>> these days. I don?t >>>>> remember when women >>>>> started taking on the hair >>>>> style. Since I mentioned >>>>> Elvis Presley, this post >>>>> counts as relevant to the >>>>> subject line! Ha! >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 >>>>>> AM, James Ma >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>> More on mandarin duck, >>>>>> just thought you might >>>>>> like to see: >>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>> >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> ? 2018?11?27??? >>>>>> 19:30??? >>>>>> >>>>>> What a beautiful >>>>>> photo, James, and >>>>>> providing it is a >>>>>> move on this subject >>>>>> line that >>>>>> instantiates nicely >>>>>> Gee?s conception of >>>>>> discourse. Thanks for >>>>>> your thoughtful and >>>>>> helpful response. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at >>>>>>> 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry, thanks for >>>>>>> the info on Derek >>>>>>> Bickerton. One of >>>>>>> the interesting >>>>>>> things is his >>>>>>> conception of >>>>>>> displacement as the >>>>>>> hallmark of >>>>>>> language, whether >>>>>>> iconic, indexical or >>>>>>> symbolic. In the >>>>>>> case of Chinese >>>>>>> language, the sounds >>>>>>> are decontextualised >>>>>>> or sublimated over >>>>>>> time to become >>>>>>> something more >>>>>>> integrated into the >>>>>>> words themselves as >>>>>>> ideographs. Some of >>>>>>> Bickerton's ideas >>>>>>> are suggestive of >>>>>>> the study of >>>>>>> protolanguage as an >>>>>>> /a priori /process, >>>>>>> involving scrupulous >>>>>>> deduction. This >>>>>>> reminds me of >>>>>>> methods used in >>>>>>> diachronic >>>>>>> linguistics, which I >>>>>>> felt are relevant to >>>>>>> CHAT just as much as >>>>>>> those used in >>>>>>> synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding >>>>>>> "intermental" and >>>>>>> "intramental", I can >>>>>>> see your point. In >>>>>>> fact I don't?take >>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>> "interpsychological" >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> "intrapsychological" >>>>>>> categories?to >>>>>>> be?dichotomies or >>>>>>> binary opposites. >>>>>>> Whenever it comes to >>>>>>> their relationship, >>>>>>> I tend to have a >>>>>>> post-structuralism >>>>>>> imagery present in >>>>>>> my mind, >>>>>>> particularly related >>>>>>> to a Derridean >>>>>>> stance for the >>>>>>> conception of ideas >>>>>>> (i.e.any idea is not >>>>>>> entirely distinct >>>>>>> from other ideas in >>>>>>> terms of the "thing >>>>>>> itself"; rather, it >>>>>>> entails a supplement >>>>>>> of the other idea >>>>>>> which is?already >>>>>>> embedded in the >>>>>>> self). Vygotsky's >>>>>>> two categoriesare >>>>>>> relational >>>>>>> (dialectical); they >>>>>>> are somehow like a >>>>>>> pair of mandarin >>>>>>> ducks (see attached >>>>>>> image). I also like >>>>>>> to think that each >>>>>>> of these categories >>>>>>> is both >>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" >>>>>>> (here discourse is >>>>>>> in tune with James >>>>>>> Gee's conception of >>>>>>> discourse as a >>>>>>> patchwork of >>>>>>> actions, >>>>>>> interactions, >>>>>>> thoughts, feelings >>>>>>> etc). I recall >>>>>>> Barbara Rogoff >>>>>>> talking about there >>>>>>> being no boundary >>>>>>> between the external >>>>>>> and the internal or >>>>>>> the boundary being >>>>>>> blurred (during her >>>>>>> seminar?in?the >>>>>>> Graduate School of >>>>>>> Education at Bristol >>>>>>> in 2001 while?I >>>>>>> was?doing my PhD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 >>>>>>> at 23:14, HENRY >>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James, >>>>>>> I think it was >>>>>>> Derek Bickerton >>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>> who argued that >>>>>>> ?formal syntax? >>>>>>> developed from >>>>>>> stringing >>>>>>> together turns >>>>>>> in verbal >>>>>>> interaction. The >>>>>>> wiki on >>>>>>> Bickerton I have >>>>>>> linked is short >>>>>>> and raises >>>>>>> issues discussed >>>>>>> in this subject >>>>>>> line and in the >>>>>>> subject line on >>>>>>> Corballis. >>>>>>> Bickerton brings >>>>>>> me back to the >>>>>>> circularity of >>>>>>> discourse and >>>>>>> the development >>>>>>> of discourse >>>>>>> competence. >>>>>>> Usage-based >>>>>>> grammar. >>>>>>> Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>> that complex >>>>>>> grammar >>>>>>> developed out of >>>>>>> the pidgins of >>>>>>> our ancestors is >>>>>>> interesting. Do >>>>>>> I see a >>>>>>> chicken/egg >>>>>>> problem that for >>>>>>> Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>> intramental >>>>>>> forms of >>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>> mediation is >>>>>>> better >>>>>>> understood by >>>>>>> examining the >>>>>>> types of >>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>> processes?? I >>>>>>> don?t know. >>>>>>> Could one say >>>>>>> that inner >>>>>>> speech is the >>>>>>> vehicle for >>>>>>> turning >>>>>>> discourse into >>>>>>> grammar? >>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>> claimed a strong >>>>>>> biological >>>>>>> component to >>>>>>> human language, >>>>>>> though I don?t >>>>>>> remember if he >>>>>>> was a Chomskian. >>>>>>> I hope this is >>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>> thinking in the >>>>>>> context of our >>>>>>> conversation. >>>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 21, >>>>>>>> 2018, at 3:22 >>>>>>>> PM, James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd >>>>>>>> agree with Greg >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>> is relevant and >>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>> transcends >>>>>>>> "outlines"?or >>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>> sublimates the >>>>>>>> "muddledness" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "unpredictability" >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> (as in >>>>>>>> Bateson's >>>>>>>> metalogue) into >>>>>>>> what Rommetveit >>>>>>>> termed?the >>>>>>>> "draft of a >>>>>>>> contract". This >>>>>>>> is because >>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>> explicit and >>>>>>>> external what >>>>>>>> would otherwise >>>>>>>> remain implicit >>>>>>>> and internal. >>>>>>>> Rommetveit >>>>>>>> argues >>>>>>>> that?private >>>>>>>> worlds can only >>>>>>>> be transcended >>>>>>>> up to a certain >>>>>>>> level and >>>>>>>> interlocutors >>>>>>>> need to agree >>>>>>>> upon?the?draft >>>>>>>> of a contract >>>>>>>> with which the >>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>> initiated. In >>>>>>>> the spirit of >>>>>>>> Vygotsky, he >>>>>>>> uses a >>>>>>>> "pluralistic" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>> approach to >>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>> communication - >>>>>>>> and especially >>>>>>>> to the problem >>>>>>>> of linguistic >>>>>>>> mediation and >>>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>> with reference >>>>>>>> to semantics, >>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For >>>>>>>> him, >>>>>>>> the?intramental >>>>>>>> forms of >>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>> mediation?is >>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>> understood?by >>>>>>>> examining the >>>>>>>> types of >>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think?these >>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>> processes >>>>>>>> (just?like >>>>>>>> intramental >>>>>>>> ones) can be >>>>>>>> boiled down or >>>>>>>> distilled?to >>>>>>>> signs and >>>>>>>> symbols with >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> interlocutors >>>>>>>> are in harmony >>>>>>>> during?a >>>>>>>> conversation or >>>>>>>> any other joint >>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov >>>>>>>> 2018 at 08:09, >>>>>>>> Alfredo Jornet >>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry's >>>>>>>> remarks >>>>>>>> about no >>>>>>>> directors >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> symphonic >>>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>> me?of >>>>>>>> G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>> metalogue >>>>>>>> "why do >>>>>>>> things have >>>>>>>> outlines" >>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>> it raises >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> question of >>>>>>>> units and >>>>>>>> elements, >>>>>>>> of how a >>>>>>>> song, a >>>>>>>> dance,?a >>>>>>>> poem, a >>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>> to make >>>>>>>> sense, they >>>>>>>> must have a >>>>>>>> recognizable >>>>>>>> outline, >>>>>>>> even in >>>>>>>> improvisation; >>>>>>>> they must >>>>>>>> be wholes, >>>>>>>> or suggest >>>>>>>> wholes. >>>>>>>> That makes >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>> yet, when >>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>> immersed in >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>> what comes >>>>>>>> next is the >>>>>>>> whole point >>>>>>>> that?keep >>>>>>>> us?talking, >>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> on behalf >>>>>>>> of HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 >>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>> 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> and music >>>>>>>> I?d like to >>>>>>>> add to the >>>>>>>> call and >>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> discourse, >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> itself, is >>>>>>>> staged. >>>>>>>> There are >>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>> and and an >>>>>>>> audience >>>>>>>> made up >>>>>>>> partly of >>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>> themselves. >>>>>>>> How many >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> lurkers, as >>>>>>>> I am >>>>>>>> usually? >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>> director, >>>>>>>> but there >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> leaders. >>>>>>>> There is >>>>>>>> symphonic >>>>>>>> potential. >>>>>>>> And even >>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>> potential, >>>>>>>> making the >>>>>>>> chat a >>>>>>>> dance. All >>>>>>>> on line.:) >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, >>>>>>>>> 2018, at >>>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, >>>>>>>>> mike cole >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For many >>>>>>>>> years I >>>>>>>>> used the >>>>>>>>> work of >>>>>>>>> Ellen >>>>>>>>> Dissenyake >>>>>>>>> to teach >>>>>>>>> comm >>>>>>>>> classes >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>> She is >>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>> unusual in >>>>>>>>> ways that >>>>>>>>> might find >>>>>>>>> interest here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, >>>>>>>>> Nov 17, >>>>>>>>> 2018 at >>>>>>>>> 2:16 PM >>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>>>> Simangele, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>>> terms, >>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> constructed >>>>>>>>> internally >>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>> signified, >>>>>>>>> i.e. >>>>>>>>> his or >>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>> vocalised >>>>>>>>> (spoken >>>>>>>>> out), >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> becomes >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> signifier >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> listener. >>>>>>>>> What's >>>>>>>>> more, >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> signifiers >>>>>>>>> turns >>>>>>>>> into a >>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>> signified >>>>>>>>> ? a >>>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>> woven >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> fabric >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> meaning >>>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the >>>>>>>>> way, >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>> language, >>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>> inseparably. >>>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>> it,?they >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>> indexed >>>>>>>>> to, or >>>>>>>>> adjusted >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> allow >>>>>>>>> for, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>> emotions, >>>>>>>>> actions >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> interactions >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>> experiencing >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> dancing. >>>>>>>>> Here >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> idioms: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>> rapturously >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>> club >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>> citizens >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> ancient >>>>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181212/cc5e462b/attachment.html From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Thu Dec 13 13:55:22 2018 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 21:55:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> Message-ID: <21E6DFFD-B6F2-45CD-8C8A-1B6247D56AAE@manchester.ac.uk> David et al I don?t want to distract you too much, but there was a really interesting programme on BBC radio 4 today about the relation/distinction between ?song? and ?poetry?, and some discourses about nobel lauriat Bob Dylan, ? or Leonard Cohen?s poetry (it seems he has a book of ?poetry? that didn?t get to music?, etc. What would their songs consist of if you took out the music ? ? It was suggested that poems have an ?internal music? that means they don?t need to be put to song ? but that popular culture is demeaned by the music, so that it becomes accessible ? Sorry this may not be helpful: I just caught the edge of this programme but thought it might be of interest? Julian From: on behalf of David Kellogg Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:46 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been having the Moscow Summer School down here in Sydney, where the summers come around Christmastime and you can lecture in your bare feet....there is a little post scriptum to try to make it relevant to what Andy's thinking. But right now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to come back to music....) Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a Subject, because we don't really distinguish between reception and production of signs. (The model has to be kept neutral, in order to be parsimonious.) Is that Peircean, or Saussurean? Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a sign without an object, since Euclidean lines that have no width and infinite extension do not actually exist). Then he says that a bullet hole in piece of moulding (he has in mind the sort of thing you see on nineteenth century buildings) is an index (because it is a sign without an interpretant). I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? David Kellogg Sangmyung University PS: One difference between scientific concepts and everyday ones is that the former develop through differentiation rather than just adding once generalized representation to another through experience. I don't think it's an absolute difference: I think that differentiation is often a product of reflection (refraction, perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) and that is, after all, one kind of representation and one kind of experience, but it's a special kind. Differentiation is finding differences that make a difference (Bateson). Both Vygotsky and Peirce differentiate signs, but in somewhat different ways, and it seems to me that it's a difference that makes a difference. Vygotsky differentiates signs into signals (the red leaves are a signal of winter) and symbols (the red light is a traffic light symbol). The difference is whether consciousness is involved or not. I think that Vygotsky would reject the idea that consciousness can be reduced to a "second signal system": that was a tactical maneuver to try to make his work compatible with vulgar behaviorism in the fifties. Note that even the idea that consciousness is a "reaction to a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of a perezhivanie" is not reducible to a "second signal system" so long as you understand that signals do not involve consciousness. Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, and thirdness: icons (where no object is required), indexes (where no interpretant is required) and symbols (where alll three are present and accounted for in the meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a psychological distinction, and it needs to be interpreted psychologically before we can talk about language. But there are a lot of linguists who would disagree with that, because there is a strong desire to abolish psychology in linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). Music education has struggled with this for a long time: is music icon, index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed it was an icon, and you teach children to imagine their bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed it was an index, and you teach it as result of a practice which can be interpersonal or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as language and taught us to teach music as a literacy. But of course then music is meaning, not sounding. dk On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the "different" game/tune) On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the theory? -greg [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing different tunes"? Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does not include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of objective processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: Andy, My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen rule! Cheers, greg On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean signs is an entirely formal project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very relevant answers. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. Cheers, -greg On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: Right on, James! On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. James HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? James, This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. Henry On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. James On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts images. One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! Henry On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma > wrote: Thank you Henry. More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck HENRY SHONERD > ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response. Henry On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an a priori process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). James On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: James, I think it was Derek Bickerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All that jazz. Henry On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma > wrote: Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent here. As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes. I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. James ________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, etc! Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: 21 November 2018 06:22 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. All on line.:) Henry On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole > wrote: For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might find interest here. https://ellendissanayake.com/ mike On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma > wrote: Hello Simangele, In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the fabric of meaning making. By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some idioms: ???? - singing and dancing rapturously ???? - dancing village and singing club ???? - citizens of ancient -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181213/a8c245ee/attachment.html From Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn Thu Dec 13 16:09:43 2018 From: Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn (Adam Poole (16517826)) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:09:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: <21E6DFFD-B6F2-45CD-8C8A-1B6247D56AAE@manchester.ac.uk> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> , <21E6DFFD-B6F2-45CD-8C8A-1B6247D56AAE@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Julian, Thanks for the post - it certainly has got me thinking. This won't be a theoretical response - just my ideas as a music fan and someone who dabbles in guitar, bass and drums. I think it depends on which came first, the music or the lyrics. Taking the Beatles as an example, if you took away the music to say 'She Loves You', the lyrics wouldn't have a chance of standing on their own (they don't even with the music, but the music and the melody carry the lyrics). A point of note, however, is the use of 'she' rather than 'I' which for the Beatles at that time was a bit of a creative revolution (reporting a conversation rather than telling it directly). However, a song like 'Across the Universe', whose lyric I believe was written before the music, can stand on its own, and also has many features (such as simile, metaphor, etc) associated with poetry. In some instances, the lyrics inspire the music. A case in point, 'In my Life' by the Beatles again (sorry, they are my favourite band!) which deals with memory as embodied in people and places. There is a lyric that goes 'all my life, though some have changed'. The chords change from a D to a D minor on the word 'life', which to me suggests the ambivalence of memory and nostalgia. In this instance, music does not demean the lyrics but provides an additional modality of meaning that enhances them. Music is another form of language. This also raises an issue about the status of poetry and lyrics, but that is something that we might explore if this conversation takes off. Anyway, just some ideas as I sit at my desk on a Friday morning. Best, Adam Poole ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian Williams Sent: 14 December 2018 05:55:22 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music David et al I don??t want to distract you too much, but there was a really interesting programme on BBC radio 4 today about the relation/distinction between ??song?? and ??poetry??, and some discourses about nobel lauriat Bob Dylan, ?? or Leonard Cohen??s poetry (it seems he has a book of ??poetry?? that didn??t get to music??, etc. What would their songs consist of if you took out the music ?? ? It was suggested that poems have an ??internal music?? that means they don??t need to be put to song ?? but that popular culture is demeaned by the music, so that it becomes accessible ?? Sorry this may not be helpful: I just caught the edge of this programme but thought it might be of interest?? Julian From: on behalf of David Kellogg Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:46 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been having the Moscow Summer School down here in Sydney, where the summers come around Christmastime and you can lecture in your bare feet....there is a little post scriptum to try to make it relevant to what Andy's thinking. But right now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to come back to music....) Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a Subject, because we don't really distinguish between reception and production of signs. (The model has to be kept neutral, in order to be parsimonious.) Is that Peircean, or Saussurean? Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a sign without an object, since Euclidean lines that have no width and infinite extension do not actually exist). Then he says that a bullet hole in piece of moulding (he has in mind the sort of thing you see on nineteenth century buildings) is an index (because it is a sign without an interpretant). I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? David Kellogg Sangmyung University PS: One difference between scientific concepts and everyday ones is that the former develop through differentiation rather than just adding once generalized representation to another through experience. I don't think it's an absolute difference: I think that differentiation is often a product of reflection (refraction, perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) and that is, after all, one kind of representation and one kind of experience, but it's a special kind. Differentiation is finding differences that make a difference (Bateson). Both Vygotsky and Peirce differentiate signs, but in somewhat different ways, and it seems to me that it's a difference that makes a difference. Vygotsky differentiates signs into signals (the red leaves are a signal of winter) and symbols (the red light is a traffic light symbol). The difference is whether consciousness is involved or not. I think that Vygotsky would reject the idea that consciousness can be reduced to a "second signal system": that was a tactical maneuver to try to make his work compatible with vulgar behaviorism in the fifties. Note that even the idea that consciousness is a "reaction to a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of a perezhivanie" is not reducible to a "second signal system" so long as you understand that signals do not involve consciousness. Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, and thirdness: icons (where no object is required), indexes (where no interpretant is required) and symbols (where alll three are present and accounted for in the meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a psychological distinction, and it needs to be interpreted psychologically before we can talk about language. But there are a lot of linguists who would disagree with that, because there is a strong desire to abolish psychology in linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). Music education has struggled with this for a long time: is music icon, index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed it was an icon, and you teach children to imagine their bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed it was an index, and you teach it as result of a practice which can be interpersonal or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as language and taught us to teach music as a literacy. But of course then music is meaning, not sounding. dk On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the "different" game/tune) On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the theory? -greg [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing different tunes"? Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does not include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of objective processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: Andy, My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would suggest). The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases). I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen rule! Cheers, greg On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean signs is an entirely formal project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very relevant answers. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about language!).] Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro theory). The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for development. Cheers, -greg On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: Right on, James! On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. James HENRY SHONERD > ?? 2018??11??29?????? 18:58?????? James, This conversation has been so satisfying I don??t want to let go of it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo??s post, I??ll just keep on talking and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky??s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ??gestured??, pointed to to author sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of language where in ??tension??: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. Henry On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. James On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts images. One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don??t remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! Henry On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma > wrote: Thank you Henry. More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck HENRY SHONERD > ?? 2018??11??27?????? 19:30?????? What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject line that instantiates nicely Gee??s conception of discourse. Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response. Henry On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma > wrote: Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an a priori process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). James On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: James, I think it was Derek Bickerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that ??formal syntax?? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton??s idea that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ????the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes??? I don??t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological component to human language, though I don??t remember if he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All that jazz. Henry On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma > wrote: Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent here. As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental processes. I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. James ________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, etc! Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > Sent: 21 November 2018 06:22 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music I??d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. All on line.:) Henry On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole > wrote: For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might find interest here. https://ellendissanayake.com/ mike On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma > wrote: Hello Simangele, In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new signified ?C a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the fabric of meaning making. By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some idioms: ???????? - singing and dancing rapturously ???????? - dancing village and singing club ???????? - citizens of ancient This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181214/4ff79aa2/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Fri Dec 14 02:51:21 2018 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:51:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <21E6DFFD-B6F2-45CD-8C8A-1B6247D56AAE@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I just thought I'd throw it into the mix. I remember when my daughter was learning to speak that I realised that I had not noticed when she started using words. Her communication with gesture and tone of vocalisation was already so vibrant and so complete that words seemed almost superfluous. So how much of the thing we call language is in the words, and how much in other stuff like musical tone? Rob On 14/12/2018 00:09, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: > > > Hi Julian, > > > Thanks for the post - it certainly has got me thinking. This won't be > a theoretical response - just my ideas as a music fan and someone who > dabbles in guitar, bass anddrums. > > > I think it depends on which came first, the music or the lyrics. > Taking the Beatles as an example, if you took away the music to say > 'She Loves You', the lyrics wouldn't have a chance of standing on > their own (they don't even with the music, but the music and the > melody carry the lyrics). A point of note, however, is the use of > 'she' rather than 'I' which for the Beatles at that time was a bit of > a creative revolution (reporting a conversation rather than telling it > directly). > > > However, a song like 'Across the Universe', whose lyric I believe was > written before the music, can stand on its own, and also has many > features (such as simile, metaphor, etc) associated with poetry. > > > In some instances, the lyrics inspire the music. A case in point, 'In > my Life' by the Beatles again (sorry, they are my favourite band!) > which deals with memory as embodied in people and places. There is a > lyric that goes 'all my life, though some have changed'. The chords > change from a D to a D minor on the word 'life', which to me suggests > the ambivalence of memory and nostalgia. In this instance, music does > not demean the lyrics but provides an additional modality of meaning > that enhances them. Music is another form of language. > > > This also raises an issue about the status of poetry and lyrics, but > that is something that we might explore if this conversation takes off. > > > Anyway, just some ideas as I sit at my desk on a Friday morning. > > > Best, > > > Adam Poole > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Julian Williams > > *Sent:* 14 December 2018 05:55:22 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > David et al > > I don?t want to distract you too much, but there was a really > interesting programme on BBC radio 4 today about the > relation/distinction between ?song? and ?poetry?, and some discourses > about nobel lauriat Bob Dylan, ? or ?Leonard Cohen?s poetry (it seems > he has a book of ?poetry? that didn?t get to music?, etc. > > What would their songs consist of if you took out the music ? ? > > It was suggested that poems have an ?internal music? that means they > don?t need to be put to song ? but that popular culture is demeaned by > the music, so that it becomes accessible ? > > Sorry this may not be helpful: I just caught the edge of this > programme but thought it might be of interest? > > Julian > > *From: * on behalf of David Kellogg > > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:46 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been having the > Moscow Summer School down here in Sydney, where the summers come > around Christmastime and you can lecture in your bare feet....there is > a little post scriptum to try to make it relevant to what Andy's > thinking. But right now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to > come back to music....) > > Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a Subject, > because we don't really distinguish between reception and production > of signs. (The model has to be kept neutral, in order to be > parsimonious.) Is that Peircean, or Saussurean? > > Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a sign > without an object, since Euclidean lines that have no width and > infinite extension do not actually exist). Then he says that a bullet > hole in piece of moulding (he has in mind the sort of thing you see on > nineteenth century buildings) is an index (because it is a sign > without an interpretant). > > I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? > > > David Kellogg > > Sangmyung University > > PS: One difference between?scientific concepts and everyday ones is > that?the former develop through differentiation rather than just > adding once?generalized representation to another through experience. > I don't think it's an absolute difference:?I think that > differentiation is often a product of reflection (refraction, > perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) and that is, after all, one kind > of representation and one kind of experience, but it's a special kind. > > Differentiation is finding differences that make a difference > (Bateson). Both Vygotsky and Peirce differentiate signs, but in > somewhat different ways, and it seems to me that it's a difference > that makes a difference. > > Vygotsky differentiates signs?into signals (the red leaves are a > signal of winter) and symbols (the red light is a traffic light > symbol). The difference is whether consciousness is involved or not. I > think that Vygotsky would reject the idea that consciousness can be > reduced to a "second signal system": that was a tactical?maneuver to > try to make his work compatible with?vulgar behaviorism?in the > fifties. Note that?even the idea that consciousness is a "reaction to > a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of a perezhivanie" is not reducible to > a "second signal system" so long as you understand that signals?do not > involve consciousness. > > Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, and thirdness: > icons (where no object is required), indexes (where no interpretant is > required) and symbols (where alll three are present and accounted for > in the meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a psychological > distinction, and it needs to be interpreted psychologically before we > can talk about language. But there are a lot of linguists who would > disagree with that, because there is a strong desire to abolish > psychology in linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). > > Music education has struggled with this for a long time: is music > icon, index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed it was an icon, and > you teach children to imagine their bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed > it was an index, and you teach it as result of a practice which can be > interpersonal or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as language and > taught us to teach music as a literacy. But of course then music is > meaning, not sounding. > > dk > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the > "different" game/tune) > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me > wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's > characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe you > were the one who shared it with me but from your tone here I > assume that you feel that it falls short in theorizing a > "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with > regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > -greg > > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the > metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are > simply "playing different tunes"? > > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind > the game! :) Thank you. > > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that > it does /not / include the category of Subject in its > triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means > that it can be used for the analysis of /objective/ > processes. When used in this way it does not imply > "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was > the basis of my objection to James's observation. Speech > and gesture has a subject. > > The other minor point I would make about your very erudite > response is that I think we should not be too apologetic > about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a > sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce > the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in > fact (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is > incomprehensible without the presumption that it is > mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become > Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Andy, > > My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer > to be critical or charitable toward linguistic > anthropologists. > > The critical approach would say that with a few > exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, > Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right. > > The charitable approach would say that linguistic > anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the > things that you are talking about. Most of the ones > that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. > Most of them are grappling with issues of practice, > not just studying formal structures that exist in > someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). > In fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic > anthropologists that I know is to call them a > "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere > documenter of language variation across the globe. > Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of > understanding the practical consequences of semiotic > forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes > precisely the point that you are making through his > deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce > offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived > practice rather than one that exists only in the > "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would > suggest). > > The critical approach is nice because you can just > dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their > gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable > approach might suggest that we should at least > acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to > do. I figured that there might be a few who are > interested, but most on the listserve will find that > it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't blame > them! (as someone in this goofy world of academia, I'm > very sensitive to the fact that learning the language > of an entirely new system is a major time commitment > and only worth it in rare cases). > > I think things get a bit more complicated when we get > to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that > you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book > How Forests Think). I understand that you are very > much a humanist and don't like this approach for some > very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed > to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best > person to make the case for this position - unless you > are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm > already well beyond your one screen rule! > > Cheers, > > greg > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: > "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or > otherwise, don't have much interest in talking > about such things as psychological functioning" > and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in > what people do as well as what they think. In > other words, the turn to seeing language as a > system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* > project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the > babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally > analysed with the same set of concepts as the > babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But > this is purely formal, superficial and obscures > what is expressed and transacted in the human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal > disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can > be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out > from such formal disciplines relevant to the real > world (mathematics being the supreme example), but > ....! One really has to keep in mind that words > are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of > how it is that humans alone have language by > saying that everything has language, even > inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret > the equation of language with Peircean signs), is > somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to > grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device > "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of > language. And yet to hold that an actual > biological, neuronal formation as a LAD exists in > all human beings in quite inconsistent with the > foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. > Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. Which > tells me that there is a problem with this formal > analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time > Google manages to correctly parse an ordinary > language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this > group for precisely the reasons Helena > mentioned previously (the proliferation of > technical languages in different fields and > the time-intensive labor of translating > terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking > from one of these fields to the next). Add the > fact that there are few who have much interest > in one of the field of linguistic anthropology > (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean > semiotics - a tangle of words in its own > right), and this means the following post will > likely remain an orphan (not at all because of > anyone's ill intentions but simply because > this is an impossible situation for anyone to > commit to learning an entirely new language > for talking about language!).] > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you > would point to (!) the indexical and iconic > potentials of SPOKEN language while noting > that this flattens the oft-made distinction > between gesture and the spoken word? Our > dominant ideology of language tends to assume > that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and > gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's > notion of indexical and iconic functions > offers us a way into seeing how spoken > language is also indexical and iconic (as > opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out of > hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses > onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" > (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was > one of the first to point to the problem of > this dominant ideology of language, and > Michael Silverstein has made a rather > substantial career off of this simple point, > first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on > "shifters" and since then in numerous other > works. Many others working in linguistic > anthropology have spent the last 40 years > expanding on this project by exploring the > indexical and iconic nature of spoken language > in the concepts of "indexicality" and > "iconization". More recently linguistic > anthropologists have considered the processes > by which sign-functions can shift from one > function to another - e.g., rhematization - > from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see > Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and > iconization - from symbolic or iconic to > indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's > work). And others have looked at more basic > features of sign-functioning such as the > realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and > Nicholas Harkness' special issue in Anthro > theory). > > The relevance of all this for the present list > serve is that the processes being described by > these linguistic anthropologists are > fundamental to understanding human > psychological functioning and yet most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or > otherwise, don't have much interest in talking > about such things as psychological functioning > (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., > in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - > although beware that his writing is just as > dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that > this could be a particularly productive > intersection for development. > > Cheers, > > -greg > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > Right on, James! > > > > On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma > > wrote: > > Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I > discussion to be exploratory and free > style, allowing for the coexistence of > subjectness and subjectless. When it > comes to scholarly writing, we know we > will switch the code. > > James > > HENRY SHONERD > ? > 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? > > James, > > This conversation has been so > satisfying I don?t want to let go > of it, so I hope I am not tiring > you or others with all the > connections I find. But, in the > spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll > just keep on talking and remark on > how the duck tail hair cut is a > rich gesture, an important concept > in this subject line. Gesture is > an aspect of communication present > in many species. Hence, the > importance of gesture as a > rudimentary form of language with > evolutionary results in human > language. Maybe this is a reach, > but I see the business of quotes > in the subject line now taking > place (Anna Stetsenko and > Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, > contributing right now) on the > last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech > and Language as an issue of > gesture. Language, written > language in this case, is limited > in its ability to provide nuance. > Writing without quotes ?gestured?, > pointed to to author sources > familar in the day that Vygotsky > wrote, such that quotes were not > necessary. Dan Slobin, > psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, > wrote that two charges of language > where in ?tension?: 1) make > yourself clear and 2) get it said > before losing the thread of > thinking and talking. Gesture, I > would like to argue, is an aspect > of discourse that helps to address > this tension. A turn (in > discourse) is a gesture, with > temporal constraints that belie > the idea that a single turn can > ever be totally clear in and of > itself. Writing, as we are doing > now, is always dialogic, even a > whole book, is a turn in > discourse. And we keep on posting > our turns. > > Henry > > > > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, > James Ma > > wrote: > > Henry, Elvis Presley is spot > on?for this?subject line! > > The ducktail hairstyle is > fabulous. Funnily > enough,?it?is?what my brother > would?always?like?his > 9-year-old son to have?because > he has much thicker hair than > most boys. Unfortunately?last > year the boy had > a?one-day?show off in?the > classroom?and was?ticked off > by?the school?authority (in > China).?However,?my brother > has?managed to > restore?the?ducktail twice a > year during?the boy's?long > school holiday in winter and > summer! > > I suppose the outlines of > conversation are predictable > due to participants' > intersubjective awareness of > the subject. Yet,?the nuances > of conversation (just like > each individual's ducktail > unique?to himself)?are > unpredictable because of the > waywardness of?our mind. > What's more, > such?nuances?create the > fluidity of conversation which > makes it?difficult (or > even?unnecessary) > to?predict?what comes next - > this is perhaps the whole > point that keeps?us?talking, > as Alfredo pointed out?earlier. > > James > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, > HENRY SHONERD > > > wrote: > > Back at you, James. The > images of the mandarin > drake reminded me of a > hair style popularin the > late 50s when I was in > high school (grades 9-12): > ducktail haircuts images > . > One of the photos in the > link is of Elvis Presley, > an alpha male high school > boys sought to emulate. > Note that some of the > photos are of women, > interesting in light of > issues of gender fluidity > these days. I don?t > remember when women > started taking on the hair > style. Since I mentioned > Elvis Presley, this post > counts as relevant to the > subject line! Ha! > > Henry > > > > On Nov 28, 2018, at > 7:39 AM, James Ma > > > wrote: > > Thank you Henry. > > More on mandarin duck, > just thought you might > like to see: > > https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck > > HENRY SHONERD > > > ? 2018?11?27??? > 19:30??? > > What a beautiful > photo, James, and > providing it is a > move on this > subject line that > instantiates > nicely Gee?s > conception of > discourse. Thanks > for your > thoughtful and > helpful response. > > Henry > > > > On Nov 27, > 2018, at 11:11 > AM, James Ma > > > wrote: > > Henry, thanks > for the info > on Derek > Bickerton. One > of the > interesting > things is his > conception of > displacement > as the > hallmark of > language, > whether > iconic, > indexical or > symbolic. In > the case of > Chinese > language, the > sounds are > decontextualised > or sublimated > over time to > become > something more > integrated > into the words > themselves as > ideographs. > Some of > Bickerton's > ideas are > suggestive of > the study of > protolanguage > as an /a > priori > /process, > involving > scrupulous > deduction. > This reminds > me of methods > used in > diachronic > linguistics, > which I felt > are relevant > to CHAT just > as much as > those used in > synchronic > linguistics. > > Regarding > "intermental" > and > "intramental", > I can see your > point. In fact > I don't?take > Vygotsky's > "interpsychological" > and > "intrapsychological" > categories?to > be?dichotomies > or binary > opposites. > Whenever it > comes to their > relationship, > I tend to have > a > post-structuralism > imagery > present in my > mind, > particularly > related to a > Derridean > stance for the > conception of > ideas (i.e. > any idea is > not entirely > distinct from > other ideas in > terms of the > "thing > itself"; > rather, it > entails a > supplement of > the other idea > which > is?already > embedded in > the self). > Vygotsky's two > categories are > relational > (dialectical); > they are > somehow like a > pair of > mandarin ducks > (see attached > image). I also > like to think > that each of > these > categories is > both > "discourse-in-context" > and > "context-for-discourse" > (here > discourse is > in tune with > James Gee's > conception of > discourse as a > patchwork of > actions, > interactions, > thoughts, > feelings etc). > I recall > Barbara Rogoff > talking about > there being no > boundary > between the > external and > the internal > or the > boundary being > blurred > (during her > seminar?in?the > Graduate > School of > Education at > Bristol in > 2001 while?I > was?doing my PhD). > > James > > On Wed, 21 Nov > 2018 at 23:14, > HENRY SHONERD > > > wrote: > > James, > > I think it > was Derek > Bickerton > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) > who argued > that > ?formal > syntax? > developed > from > stringing > together > turns in > verbal > interaction. > The wiki > on > Bickerton > I have > linked is > short and > raises > issues > discussed > in this > subject > line and > in the > subject > line on > Corballis. > Bickerton > brings me > back to > the > circularity > of > discourse > and the > development > of > discourse > competence. > Usage-based > grammar. > Bickerton?s > idea that > complex > grammar > developed > out of the > pidgins of > our > ancestors > is > interesting. > Do I see a > chicken/egg > problem > that for > Vygotsky, > ??the > intramental > forms of > semiotic > mediation > is better > understood > by > examining > the types > of > intermental > processes?? > I don?t > know. > Could one > say that > inner > speech is > the > vehicle > for > turning > discourse > into > grammar? > Bickerton > claimed a > strong > biological > component > to human > language, > though I > don?t > remember > if he was > a > Chomskian. > I hope > this is > coherent > thinking > in the > context of > our > conversation. > All that jazz. > > Henry > > > > On Nov > 21, > 2018, > at > 3:22 > PM, > James > Ma > > > wrote: > > Alfredo, > I'd > agree > with > Greg - > intersubjectivity > is > relevant > and > pertinent > here. > > As I > see > it, > intersubjectivity > transcends > "outlines"?or > perhaps > sublimates > the > "muddledness" > and > "unpredictability" > of a > conversation > (as in > Bateson's > metalogue) > into > what > Rommetveit > termed?the > "draft > of a > contract". > This > is > because > shared > understanding?makes > explicit > and > external > what > would > otherwise > remain > implicit > and > internal. > Rommetveit > argues > that?private > worlds > can > only > be > transcended > up to > a > certain > level > and > interlocutors > need > to > agree > upon?the?draft > of a > contract > with > which > the > communication > can be > initiated. > In the > spirit > of > Vygotsky, > he > uses a > "pluralistic" > and > "social-cognitive" > approach > to > human > communication > - and > especially > to the > problem > of > linguistic > mediation > and > regulation > in > interpsychological > functioning, > with > reference > to > semantics, > syntactics > and > pragmatics.?For > him, > the?intramental > forms > of > semiotic > mediation?is > better > understood?by > examining > the > types > of > intermental > processes. > > > I > think?these > intermental > processes > (just?like > intramental > ones) > can be > boiled > down > or > distilled?to > signs > and > symbols > with > which > interlocutors > are in > harmony > during?a > conversation > or any > other > joint > activities. > > James > > */________________________________________________/* > > */James > Ma > /*/Independent > Scholar > https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > On > Wed, > 21 Nov > 2018 > at > 08:09, > Alfredo > Jornet > Gil > > > wrote: > > Henry's > remarks > about > no > directors > and > symphonic > potential?of > conversation?reminded > me?of > G.?Bateson's > metalogue > "why > do > things > have > outlines" > (attached).?Implicitly, > it > raises > the > question > of > units > and > elements, > of > how > a > song, > a > dance,?a > poem, > a > conversation, > to > make > sense, > they > must > have > a > recognizable > outline, > even > in > improvisation; > they > must > be > wholes, > or > suggest > wholes. > That > makes > them > "predictable".?And > yet, > when > you > are > immersed > in > a > conversation, > the > fact > that > you > can > never?exactly?predict > what > comes > next > is > the > whole > point > that?keep > us?talking, > dancing, > drawing, > etc! > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on > behalf > of > HENRY > SHONERD > > > *Sent:* > 21 > November > 2018 > 06:22 > *To:* > eXtended > Mind, > Culture, > Activity > *Subject:* > [Xmca-l] > Re: > language > and > music > > I?d > like > to > add > to > the > call > and > response > conversation > that > discourse, > this > conversation > itself, > is > staged. > There > are > performers > and > and > an > audience > made > up > partly > of > performers > themselves. > How > many > are > lurkers, > as > I > am > usually? > This > conversation > has > no > director, > but > there > are > leaders. > There > is > symphonic > potential. > And > even > gestural > potential, > making > the > chat > a > dance. > All > on > line.:) > > > Henry > > > > On > Nov > 20, > 2018, > at > 9:05 > PM, > mike > cole > > > wrote: > > For > many > years > I > used > the > work > of > Ellen > Dissenyake > to > teach > comm > classes > about > language/music/development. > She > is > quite > unusual > in > ways > that > might > find > interest > here. > > https://ellendissanayake.com/ > > mike > > On > Sat, > Nov > 17, > 2018 > at > 2:16 > PM > James > Ma > > > wrote: > > Hello > Simangele, > > In > semiotic > terms, > whatever > each > of > the > participants > has > constructed > internally > is > the > signified, > i.e. > his > or > her > understanding > and > interpretation. > When > it > is > vocalised > (spoken > out), > it > becomes > the > signifier > to > the > listener. > What's > more, > when > the > participants > work > together > to > compose > a > story > impromptu, > each > of > their > signifiers > turns > into > a > new > signified > ? > a > shared, > newly-established > understanding, > woven > into > the > fabric > of > meaning > making. > > > By > the > way, > in > Chinese > language, > words > for > singing > and > dancing > have > long > been > used > inseparably. > As > I > see > it,?they > are > semiotically > indexed > to, > or > adjusted > to > allow > for, > the > feelings, > emotions, > actions > and > interactions > of > a > consciousness > who > is > experiencing > the > singing > and > dancing. > Here > are > some > idioms: > > ????- > singing > and > dancing > rapturously > > ????- > dancing > village > and > singing > club > > ????- > citizens > of > ancient > > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee > and may contain confidential information. If you have received this > message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete > it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in > this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by > the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The > University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked > for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain > software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are > advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The > University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by > UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181214/78f731b4/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Dec 14 16:47:29 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:47:29 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <6A93E682-A148-4B00-AC66-79F65C9C4DEA@gmail.com> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <21E6DFFD-B6F2-45CD-8C8A-1B6247D56AAE@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: On the way back from Sydney, I got stuck in Shanghai for 24 hours and read "La disparition", by Georges Perec, because it was too cold to sleep in the transit lounge. It's a "lipogram"--a full length novel written entirely in the (fairly rare) French words that do not contain the letter "e". You don't really notice the disappearance of 'e' a first, unless you are looking for it, and even when know that it is there (or rather, that 'it' is NOT there), you find the effect rather comical than haunting and tragic, but as the characters gradually disappear, the style seems increasingly artificial and cramped (lots of contractions, no "elle", no "votre", no masculine definite article "le" or feminine indefinite article "une", a somewhat unusual past tense rather than present or passe compose, long lists of exotic nouns, many of foreign origin) and weird, until the novel finally becomes self-referential without ever being able to refer to the underlying compositional principle). It has been read as a metaphor for the holocaust (because Perec's mother died in the Holocaust and because a lot of his work is explicitly about it). But it's not--it's really a demonstration of what we are talking about. Take the first verse of Cohen's best known song: It's said there was a secret chord David played and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do ya? The authors of the BBC 4 programme that Julian is talking about find this whole thing very puzzling because of the lines about Bathesheba, and the reference to Samson and Delilah, and so on. (It's kind of interesting that the BBC feels more comfortable with the Buddhist refs in Cohen's work than it does with the Judaic ones....). The reporter thinks the song is incoherent and unusual because the addressee seems to change. There isn't anything unusual about it at all--Cohen is always addressing, as all Songs of David must, God himself (not herself--it is a great weakness of both the poet and the neither really knows about women). But the change of addressee is equally imposed by the form, just as Perec's choice of vocabulary and even diction is imposed by the lipogram: Cohen simply has to find lots of rhymes for the word "hallelujah", and it's pretty tough because English isn't used to rhyming with Hebrew. Ending each line with 'yah' makes this a lot easier (and it's interesting that when Cohen himself sings it, he perversely pronounces "do ya" as "do you". We think of rhyme as something quite natural and even defining to poetry--but it is anything but. It's fairly rare in Chinese, and (contrariwise) too banal to be essential in Korean and Italian poetry, almost prosaic, the way story-telling is in a novel. It is a constraint which can either enable or disable the theme of the work. One of the most obvious ways to enable the theme is to set rhymes in verses and set verses to music. But it is also one of the most obvious ways to disable the theme too, because the form begins to dictate the content rather than the other way around. (Vygotsky's "Psychology of Art" is rather agnostic about whether form overcoming content is good or bad: sometimes he says the one and sometimes the says the other). My question is about whether and how this differs from other forms of mediation. Elsewhere on the BBC there was a story of a blind wood-turner who had mastered his craft by "watching" 600 hours of youtube videos. He now says he would not have his sight back if it were offered him, presumably by some malicious deity who wanted to negate the triumph of his "indirect and circuitous" shortcut to mastery. A little like the editor in chief who looks over the manuscript of "La disparition" and says--it's great,George, but why don't you just cut the crap and use the letter 'e'? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:11 AM Adam Poole (16517826) < Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn> wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > > Thanks for the post - it certainly has got me thinking. This won't be a > theoretical response - just my ideas as a music fan and someone who dabbles > in guitar, bass and drums. > > > I think it depends on which came first, the music or the lyrics. Taking > the Beatles as an example, if you took away the music to say 'She Loves > You', the lyrics wouldn't have a chance of standing on their own (they > don't even with the music, but the music and the melody carry the lyrics). > A point of note, however, is the use of 'she' rather than 'I' which for the > Beatles at that time was a bit of a creative revolution (reporting a > conversation rather than telling it directly). > > > However, a song like 'Across the Universe', whose lyric I believe was > written before the music, can stand on its own, and also has many features > (such as simile, metaphor, etc) associated with poetry. > > > In some instances, the lyrics inspire the music. A case in point, 'In my > Life' by the Beatles again (sorry, they are my favourite band!) which deals > with memory as embodied in people and places. There is a lyric that goes > 'all my life, though some have changed'. The chords change from a D to a D > minor on the word 'life', which to me suggests the ambivalence of memory > and nostalgia. In this instance, music does not demean the lyrics but > provides an additional modality of meaning that enhances them. Music is > another form of language. > > > This also raises an issue about the status of poetry and lyrics, but that > is something that we might explore if this conversation takes off. > > > Anyway, just some ideas as I sit at my desk on a Friday morning. > > > Best, > > > Adam Poole > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Julian Williams > *Sent:* 14 December 2018 05:55:22 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > > David et al > > > > I don?t want to distract you too much, but there was a really interesting > programme on BBC radio 4 today about the relation/distinction between > ?song? and ?poetry?, and some discourses about nobel lauriat Bob Dylan, ? > or Leonard Cohen?s poetry (it seems he has a book of ?poetry? that didn?t > get to music?, etc. > > > > What would their songs consist of if you took out the music ? ? > > > > It was suggested that poems have an ?internal music? that means they don?t > need to be put to song ? but that popular culture is demeaned by the music, > so that it becomes accessible ? > > > > Sorry this may not be helpful: I just caught the edge of this programme > but thought it might be of interest? > > > > Julian > > > > *From: * on behalf of David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 23:46 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > > > (I wrote this a week ago and didn't post it--we've been having the Moscow > Summer School down here in Sydney, where the summers come around > Christmastime and you can lecture in your bare feet....there is a little > post scriptum to try to make it relevant to what Andy's thinking. But right > now it seems to me the most pressing issue is to come back to music....) > > > > Hallidayans would say that "interpretant" is as good as a Subject, because > we don't really distinguish between reception and production of signs. (The > model has to be kept neutral, in order to be parsimonious.) Is that > Peircean, or Saussurean? > > > > Peirce says that a pencil line is an icon (because it is a sign without an > object, since Euclidean lines that have no width and infinite extension do > not actually exist). Then he says that a bullet hole in piece of moulding > (he has in mind the sort of thing you see on nineteenth century buildings) > is an index (because it is a sign without an interpretant). > > > > I guess that means that music is icon, and not index? > > > David Kellogg > > Sangmyung University > > > > PS: One difference between scientific concepts and everyday ones is > that the former develop through differentiation rather than just adding > once generalized representation to another through experience. I don't > think it's an absolute difference: I think that differentiation is often a > product of reflection (refraction, perezhivanie, rising to the concrete) > and that is, after all, one kind of representation and one kind of > experience, but it's a special kind. > > > > Differentiation is finding differences that make a difference (Bateson). > Both Vygotsky and Peirce differentiate signs, but in somewhat different > ways, and it seems to me that it's a difference that makes a difference. > > > > Vygotsky differentiates signs into signals (the red leaves are a signal of > winter) and symbols (the red light is a traffic light symbol). The > difference is whether consciousness is involved or not. I think that > Vygotsky would reject the idea that consciousness can be reduced to a > "second signal system": that was a tactical maneuver to try to make his > work compatible with vulgar behaviorism in the fifties. Note that even the > idea that consciousness is a "reaction to a reaction" or a "perezhivanie of > a perezhivanie" is not reducible to a "second signal system" so long as you > understand that signals do not involve consciousness. > > > > Peirce differentiates signs into firstness, secondness, and thirdness: > icons (where no object is required), indexes (where no interpretant is > required) and symbols (where alll three are present and accounted for in > the meaning). I think this is a logical rather than a psychological > distinction, and it needs to be interpreted psychologically before we can > talk about language. But there are a lot of linguists who would disagree > with that, because there is a strong desire to abolish psychology in > linguistics (c.f. Jim Martin). > > > > Music education has struggled with this for a long time: is music icon, > index, or symbol? Orff (the Nazi) believed it was an icon, and you teach > children to imagine their bodies as a drum. Suzuki believed it was an > index, and you teach it as result of a practice which can be interpersonal > or individual. Only Kodaly treats music as language and taught us to teach > music as a literacy. But of course then music is meaning, not sounding. > > > > dk > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: > > (and, to be sure, on this listserve I'm really the one playing the > "different" game/tune) > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM Greg Thompson > wrote: > > Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! > > (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) > > > > And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what > you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's > notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but > from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in > theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with > regard to the shortcomings of the theory? > > > > -greg > > [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor > back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing > different tunes"? > > Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > > Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) > Thank you. > > I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not * > include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | > object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of *objective* > processes. When used in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That > virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's > observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. > > The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is > that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of > "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions > we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact > (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the > presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become > Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > Andy, > > > > My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or > charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. > > > > The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor > Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are > right. > > > > The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in > fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of > the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them > are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures > that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In > fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I > know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere > documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know > are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of > semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the > point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique > Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice > rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to > semiotics would suggest). > > > > The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with > linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The > charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their > project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few > who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't > worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this > goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the > language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only > worth it in rare cases). > > > > I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the > semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo > Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a > humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. > I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the > best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really > genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen > rule! > > > > Cheers, > > greg > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > > So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, > it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they > think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean > signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or > the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same > set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But > this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and > transacted in the human babble. > > I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that > Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out > from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being > the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words > are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans > alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate > processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with > Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. > > As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the > Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis > of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation > as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the > foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or > Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this > formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to > correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very > relevant answers. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > > [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the > reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical > languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating > terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to > the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of > the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up > Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the > following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's > ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for > anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about > language!).] > > > > Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the > indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this > flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our > dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is > (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion > of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken > language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed > them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) > and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). > > > > Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to > the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein > has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first > elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in > numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have > spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the > indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of > "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists > have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one > function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to > iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from > symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). > And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as > the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special > issue in Anthro theory). > > > > The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes > being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to > understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the > anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest > in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception > here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self - > although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I > suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for > development. > > > > Cheers, > > -greg > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Right on, James! > > > > On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free > style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it > comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. > > > > James > > > > HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? > > James, > > This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of it, so > I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find. But, > in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and remark on > how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in this > subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many > species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language > with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I > see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna > Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the > last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture. > Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to > provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author > sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not > necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two > charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get > it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would > like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this > tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that > belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of > itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole > book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. > > Henry > > > > > > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > > Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! > > > > The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my brother > would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much thicker > hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had a one-day show off > in the classroom and was ticked off by the school authority (in > China). However, my brother has managed to restore the ducktail twice a > year during the boy's long school holiday in winter and summer! > > > > I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to > participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of > conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are > unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, > such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult > (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the > whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. > > > > James > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a hair > style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail > haircuts images > . > One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high > school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, > interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t > remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned > Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! > > Henry > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > Thank you Henry. > > More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: > > https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck > > HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? > > What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this subject > line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks for > your thoughtful and helpful response. > > Henry > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting > things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language, > whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese language, the > sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to become something > more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs. Some of > Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage as an *a > priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of > methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT > just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics. > > > > Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In fact I > don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" > categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to > their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in > my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of > ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in terms of > the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other idea which > is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories are relational > (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin ducks (see attached > image). I also like to think that each of these categories is both > "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in > tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, > interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking > about there being no boundary between the external and the internal or the > boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of > Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). > > > > James > > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > James, > > I think it was Derek Bickerton ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that ?formal > syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal interaction. The > wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues discussed in > this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. Bickerton brings me > back to the circularity of discourse and the development of discourse > competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea that complex grammar > developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is interesting. Do I see a > chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the intramental forms of semiotic > mediation is better understood by examining the types of intermental > processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner speech is the vehicle > for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed a strong biological > component to human language, though I don?t remember if he was a Chomskian. > I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our conversation. All > that jazz. > > Henry > > > > > > On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > > Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and pertinent > here. > > > > As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps sublimates > the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as in Bateson's > metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a contract". This is > because shared understanding makes explicit and external what would > otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues that private > worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and interlocutors need > to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the communication can be > initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a "pluralistic" and > "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and especially to the > problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in interpsychological > functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. For > him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by > examining the types of intermental processes. > > > > I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can be > boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors are > in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities. > > > > James > > > > *________________________________________________* > > *James Ma **Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of > conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have > outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and > elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, > they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be > wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you > are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict > what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, > etc! > > > > Alfredo > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music > > > > I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that discourse, this > conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and and an audience > made up partly of performers themselves. How many are lurkers, as I am > usually? This conversation has no director, but there are leaders. There is > symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making the chat a dance. > All on line.:) > > Henry > > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm classes > about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that might > find interest here. > > > > https://ellendissanayake.com/ > > > > mike > > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma wrote: > > > > Hello Simangele, > > > > In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has constructed > internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and > interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier > to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to > compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new > signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the > fabric of meaning making. > > > > By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have long > been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to, or > adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions of > a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are some > idioms: > > > > ???? - singing and dancing rapturously > > > > ???? - dancing village and singing club > > > > ???? - citizens of ancient > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in > error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not > use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any > attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do > not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo > China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your > computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email > communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be > monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181215/f3ec44dc/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Dec 16 17:15:48 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 17:15:48 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Associate Professor of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Laurie Bayet Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:04 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Associate Professor of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education To: [image: au_logo_1.jpg] Associate Professor of Education American University, Washington DC American University invites applications for a full-time, tenure-line position at the Associate Professor rank beginning August 1, 2019. Depending on the qualifications, the appointee to this position may be recommended to tenure at the time of hiring, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. The individual selected for this position will have a faculty appointment in the School of Education (SoE ) and an affiliation as the Associate Director of the Center for Teaching, Research & Learning (CTRL), a university-wide, faculty development center. As an affiliate appointee, the faculty member will be in a position to directly connect research to instructional design, assessment, and evaluation of learning, and implementation of evidence-based practices in teaching in higher education. As a faculty member in SoE, the individual is expected to maintain an active, externally-funded research program, contribute to teaching, primarily online graduate-level courses (including in the EdD program), and advise and mentor students. As Associate Director of CTRL, the individual is expected to provide leadership and guidance in adapting best practices in teaching and learning, primarily through their work with instructional designers. To support the dual roles of this position, the faculty member will have a reduced teaching load. The successful candidate for this position will have a doctorate in Education, Curriculum and Instruction, Higher Education, Human Development, or a related area, and experience in teaching and faculty development in higher education. We are open to all areas of education and/or learning sciences but are especially interested in candidates whose research examines pedagogies related to universal design, educational technology, diversity and inclusion, or intercultural learning in higher education. Salary and benefits are competitive. Review of applications will begin February 1, 2019. Please submit applications via: https://apply.interfolio.com/58523. Please include an application package outlining research interests, teaching experience and philosophy, a CV, and copies of no more than five relevant publications. Three letters of recommendation are required and are to be sent directly from the referees in Interfolio. Please contact Kiho Kim, Executive Director of CTRL at kiho@american.edu or 202-885-2181 <(202)%20885-2181> with any questions. American University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution that operates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Women and underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply. The university does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), age, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, personal appearance, gender identity and expression, family responsibilities, political affiliation, source of income, veteran status, an individual?s genetic information or any other bases under federal or local laws (collectively ?Protected Bases?) in its programs and activities. American University is a tobacco and smoke-free campus. -- _____________________________ Sarah Irvine Belson, PhD Director, MA in Special Education: Learning Disabilities Executive Director, Institute for Innovation in Education School of Education, American University Spring Valley Suite 445, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 mailing address: 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016-8030 v. 202.885.3714 <(202)%20885-3714> e. sarah@american.edu _____________________________ -- Laurie Bayet Assistant Professor of Psychology, American University _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181216/7920d595/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: au_logo_1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21010 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181216/7920d595/attachment.jpg From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Dec 20 10:36:39 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:36:39 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Language & Sociocultural Theory 5.2 TOC-publication notification In-Reply-To: References: <5c1b6d50.1c69fb81.51ae0.cb1fSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: More venues where we can read all about it and more outlets for publication. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ailsa Parkin Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:25 AM Subject: Language & Sociocultural Theory 5.2 TOC-publication notification To: Mike Cole Language & Sociocultural Theory 5.2 (2018) View this email in your browser Twitter Facebook Pinterest Equinox Publishing *Language and Sociocultural Theory* *Issue 5.2 (2018) table of contents* *Articles* Pre-service Teacher Education from a Sociocultural Perspective: A Case-Study on Teaching Learning through Conceptual Mediation *Olga Esteve , Francesc Fern?ndez , Asunci?n Bes* Thinking through the non-native language: The role of private speech in mediating cognitive functioning in problem solving among proficient non-native speakers *Mostafa M. Garbaj* Collaborative use of multimodal resources in discussions of L2 grammatical meaning: A microgenetic analysis *Christine Mary Jacknick* *Book Reviews-open access* *Beyond the Brain: An Agentive Activity Perspective on Mind, Development, and Learning* by I. M. Arievitch (2017) *Steven McCafferty* *Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction through Narratives* by Merrill Swain, Penny Kinnear and Linda Steinman (2015) *Quang Nam Pham* *Editor* James P. Lantolf, The Pennsylvania State University, United States *Associate Editor* Matthew E. Poehner, The Pennsylvania State University, United States *Book Review Editor* Alessandro Rosborough, Brigham Young University, United States *Language and Sociocultural Theory* http://equinoxpub.com/LST ISSN 2051-9699 (print) ISSN 2051-9702 (online) *Copyright ? 2018 Equinox Publishing Ltd., All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you registered on the Equinox publishing website or are an contributor to our journals and books. *Our mailing address is:* Equinox Publishing Ltd. Office 415, The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row Sheffield, England S1 2BX United Kingdom Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181220/5f2db553/attachment-0001.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Dec 20 12:56:09 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:56:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and music In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <1542787651783.71376@ils.uio.no> <04B71749-DBC8-4789-84C6-28820C842D27@gmail.com> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking with some of your comments: First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. Second, animal utterances, however eloquently produced or approximated like human ones, are simply communication. It would be rather absurd for formal linguists to think of animal utterances as language, given that in a strict sense no animals are in effect as able to sustain a conversation as humans do! Third, on hearing that you are "definitely not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental philosopher either", it's not surprising that in my last email the paragraph beginning "More specifically..." doesn't make much sense to you. That paragraph reflects a take on consciousness and language informed by phenomenology and post-structuralism. Phenomenology gave way to post-structuralism in the 1960s, prior to which Heidegger and Sartre had taken phenomenology to a direction different to Husserl. However, Heidegger's theory as mainly presented in "Being and Time", albeit provocative and much disputed, has long been a landmark of modern thought in philosophy and beyond. Funnily enough, when reading your comments, my first impulse was recollection of you remarking that phenomenology was not for you and that Heidegger was a flawed personality! After all, perhaps we all have a Dasein unique to ourselves. Our different disciplinary interests lead to different ontological positions that influence our views on how we should know what we know! Sometimes synergistic meaning-making without emotion may be fruitful and illuminating. James On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 01:50, Andy Blunden wrote: (1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy This is the tribal division which divides philosophy departments across the Anglosphere into rival, mutually incomprehensible tribes. My lights - Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky - are certainly not part of Analytical Philosophy but are not really Continentals either. The Pragmatists - from Dewey, James and Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are not quite Analytical Philosophers, but these are the only Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am definitely not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental philosopher either. All the people I like are "in between." (2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?" This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, as a Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a Subjective Idealist. (3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful?" Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean otherwise, so something of this kind must be the case. (4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph beginning "More specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's view of the mutually interconnected development of verbal intellect and intelligent speech (whether verbal or signed). I don't want to add anything to what Vygotsky said in "Thinking and Speech." (5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is a powerful one and can be utilised consistently with Vygotsky's views on the solution of relevant problems. But the thing is that consciousness is not something which in itself has any impact on the external world, only mediately through the physiology of the thinking body and material objects wielded by the body. You strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's Semiology when you say: "consciousness is the signifying and the signified." How can consciousness signify if it is not empirically given? Unless you are just referencing an "internal world" here? (6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language"? As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like structuralism or functionalism or behaviourism), an extremely powerful approach, for the objective analysis of culture in the sense of a mass of interconnected objects and behaviours. The context in which I was speaking was the phylogenetic origins of language. Treating language as a natural process subject to objective analysis just like geological formations or the structure of ecosystems, or whatever, ruled out Semiotics as providing the explanation for why language is essentially not just a system of signs,- that a chimp screeching in fright and causing another chimp to run away, is essentially different from a chimp calling out: "There's a wolf coming!" and another chimp responding by calling out "Stop playing games, Charlie! You scared the life out of me." Even old Spinoza took the essential issue, not to have emotions, but to be able to control one's emotions and one's response to emotions. Whatever your ontological position, there remains a real puzzle: how did homo sapiens sapiens evolve? What is it that was the essential driver in forming our unquestionably unique species. Many answer that it is language, and it is not unreasonable to re-pose the original question: how did language-using evolve? If the analytical tools you bring to bear can't make a fundamental distinction between language-using and any other semiotic process, then that tool is of no use for the task at hand. Andy On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 22:15, James Ma wrote: Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said: "Language is an > essential part of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which > consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, and that > consciousness cannot in itself be a sign". I found this interesting - would > it encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a creation of minds or > mental states? Are you saying that consciousness bestows meaning to the > objects of the world or that the experience of a human subject makes these > objects meaningful? > > More specifically, linking consciousness with language, do you consider > both the intentionality of consciousness and the linguistic structures as > described in analytical philosophy (I guess you're more of an analytical > philosopher)? I wondered, in your view, what would serve as a foundation > for knowledge, if human subjects had no recourse to the narratives of > "transcendent being" or "higher being". I'm interested in Wittgenstein and > Husserl, both of whom examined language and consciousness. Wittgenstein saw > limits in what philosophy could do in terms of explaining and > understanding; Husserl stressed limits in articulating or communicating > consciousness. Can you comment on this and perhaps how it might be > implicated in your position? > > Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? As I > see it, consciousness is the signifying and the signified, both of which > evolve as consciousness evolves. In Peirce's terms, consciousness is a > semiosis. > > In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not > language". Reading Peirce, I've found it intriguing that a great deal of > his pragmaticism (as distinguished from William James's pragmatism) can be > packed into his semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might be studied > against the backdrop of his pragmaticism (which provides a conceptual basis > for his tripartite of the sign). As I see it, Peircean pragmatism is also a > theory of meaning, indicative of the role of language in making clear what > we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is meant by "going around the tree" in > William James's "squirrel on the tree"). > > This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far on Xmca-I. I'm busy > again from tomorrow but will be joyfully watching how it develops in the > background! > > James > > > > > *________________________________________________* > > *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 04:35, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like Peirce's semiotics, >> take the subject (in the sense of a moral agent) out of a process have an >> important place in analysis. The same could be said of Structuralism and >> even Marx's Capital (though it could be argued that for Marx capital is a >> subject). One can of course study language from a purely structural >> standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my point is that language >> (languaging?) is not just a system of signs. Language is an essential part >> of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which consciousness >> mediates between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot in >> itself be a sign. >> >> I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated group, or something >> of the kind. Peirce is fine. But subjects do not (generally) create words *de >> novo*; interactions (with other and self) is mediated by use of an >> already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics *can* be used to analyse >> that objectively-existing culture, but close as it comes to a concept of >> the Subject, I don't think it can get there. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: >> >> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! >> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!) >> >> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me wonder what >> you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's >> notion of the self? I believe you were the one who shared it with me but >> from your tone here I assume that you feel that it falls short in >> theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any? Particularly with >> regard to the shortcomings of the theory? >> >> -greg >> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn the metaphor >> back to the original thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing >> different tunes"? >> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind the game! :) >>> Thank you. >>> >>> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that it does *not >>> *include the category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign | >>> interpretant | object). This means that it can be used for the analysis of >>> *objective* processes. When used in this way it does not imply >>> "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my >>> objection to James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject. >>> >>> The other minor point I would make about your very erudite response is >>> that I think we should not be too apologetic about using the concept of >>> "mind." True, mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human interactions >>> we deduce the state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact >>> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without the >>> presumption that it is mindful to this or that extent. Otherwise, we become >>> Behaviourists, and Chomsky would murder us! :) >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or >>> charitable toward linguistic anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor >>> Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are >>> right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in >>> fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of >>> the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them >>> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures >>> that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >>> fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I >>> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere >>> documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know >>> are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of >>> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the >>> point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique >>> Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice >>> rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >>> semiotics would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with >>> linguistic anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The >>> charitable approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their >>> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few >>> who are interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't >>> worth investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this >>> goofy world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the >>> language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only >>> worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of >>> the semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., >>> Eduardo Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much >>> a humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons. >>> I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the >>> best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really >>> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen >>> rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the >>>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest >>>> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore, >>>> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they >>>> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean >>>> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same >>>> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But >>>> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and >>>> transacted in the human babble. >>>> >>>> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept >>>> that Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come >>>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics >>>> being the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that >>>> words are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that >>>> humans alone have language by saying that everything has language, even >>>> inanimate processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language >>>> with Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point. >>>> >>>> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the >>>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis >>>> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation >>>> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the >>>> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or >>>> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this >>>> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to >>>> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very >>>> relevant answers. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the >>>> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical >>>> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating >>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to >>>> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of >>>> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up >>>> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the >>>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>>> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for >>>> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about >>>> language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the >>>> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this >>>> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our >>>> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is >>>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>>> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) >>>> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point >>>> to the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael >>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, >>>> first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in >>>> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have >>>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the >>>> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of >>>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists >>>> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one >>>> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to >>>> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from >>>> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work). >>>> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as >>>> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special >>>> issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the >>>> processes being described by these linguistic anthropologists are >>>> fundamental to understanding human psychological functioning and yet most >>>> of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much >>>> interest in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one >>>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, >>>> Self - although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). >>>> Anyway, I suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection >>>> for development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right on, James! >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and >>>>> free style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. >>>>> When it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don?t want to let go of >>>>>> it, so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I >>>>>> find. But, in the spirit of Alfredo?s post, I?ll just keep on talking and >>>>>> remark on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important >>>>>> concept in this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present >>>>>> in many species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of >>>>>> language with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a >>>>>> reach, but I see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking >>>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right >>>>>> now) on the last chapter of Vygotsky?s Speech and Language as an issue of >>>>>> gesture. Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability >>>>>> to provide nuance. Writing without quotes ?gestured?, pointed to to author >>>>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not >>>>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two >>>>>> charges of language where in ?tension?: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get >>>>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would >>>>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this >>>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that >>>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of >>>>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole >>>>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns. >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my >>>>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much >>>>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had >>>>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the >>>>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to >>>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in >>>>>> winter and summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to >>>>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of >>>>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are >>>>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more, >>>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult >>>>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the >>>>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of >>>>>>> a hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades >>>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts images >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high >>>>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women, >>>>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don?t >>>>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned >>>>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha! >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see: >>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD ? 2018?11?27??? 19:30??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this >>>>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee?s conception of discourse. Thanks >>>>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the >>>>>>>> interesting things is his conception of displacement as the >>>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In >>>>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the sounds are decontextualised or >>>>>>>> sublimated over time to become something more integrated into the words >>>>>>>> themselves as ideographs. Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the >>>>>>>> study of protolanguage as an *a priori *process, involving >>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This reminds me of methods used in diachronic >>>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are relevant to CHAT just as much as those used >>>>>>>> in synchronic linguistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In >>>>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to >>>>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in >>>>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of >>>>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in >>>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other >>>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two >>>>>>>> categories are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a >>>>>>>> pair of mandarin ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each >>>>>>>> of these categories is both "discourse-in-context" and >>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here discourse is in tune with James Gee's >>>>>>>> conception of discourse as a patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, >>>>>>>> feelings etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no >>>>>>>> boundary between the external and the internal or the boundary being >>>>>>>> blurred (during her seminar in the Graduate School of Education at Bristol >>>>>>>> in 2001 while I was doing my PhD). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton ( >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that >>>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? developed from stringing together turns in verbal >>>>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues >>>>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis. >>>>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the >>>>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton?s idea >>>>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is >>>>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, ??the >>>>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining >>>>>>>>> the types of intermental processes?? I don?t know. Could one say that inner >>>>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed >>>>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don?t remember if >>>>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our >>>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz. >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and >>>>>>>>> pertinent here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps >>>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as >>>>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a >>>>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external >>>>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues >>>>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and >>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the >>>>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a >>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and >>>>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in >>>>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and >>>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better >>>>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) >>>>>>>>> can be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which >>>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint >>>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil < >>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of >>>>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have >>>>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and >>>>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense, >>>>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be >>>>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you >>>>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict >>>>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing, >>>>>>>>>> etc! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu < >>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD < >>>>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I?d like to add to the call and response conversation that >>>>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and >>>>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are >>>>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are >>>>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making >>>>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:) >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm >>>>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that >>>>>>>>>> might find interest here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has >>>>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier >>>>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to >>>>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new >>>>>>>>>>> signified ? a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the >>>>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>>> have long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed >>>>>>>>>>> to, or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and >>>>>>>>>>> interactions of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and >>>>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are some idioms: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - singing and dancing rapturously >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - dancing village and singing club >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and >>>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ???? - a church or building set up for singing and dancing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela < >>>>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I >>>>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National >>>>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed >>>>>>>>>>>> only in international events. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing >>>>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic >>>>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This then makes me wonder what this means in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>> cognitive functioning, in the light of Vygotsky?s developmental stages ? of >>>>>>>>>>>> language and thought. Would the body movement constitute the >>>>>>>>>>>> externalisation of the thoughts contained in the music? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena ? the video you are relating about reminds of the >>>>>>>>>>>> language teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or >>>>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and >>>>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking >>>>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person >>>>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More >>>>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories >>>>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective >>>>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared. I suppose this is an example of >>>>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as >>>>>>>>>>>> just an ?activity? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of * >>>>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01 >>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have >>>>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to >>>>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete >>>>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I >>>>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the >>>>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon, >>>>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out >>>>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and >>>>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full >>>>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about >>>>>>>>>>>> but wouldn?t happen until they did it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical >>>>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked >>>>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you >>>>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles, >>>>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The >>>>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers? film Fargo >>>>>>>>>>>> opens with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading >>>>>>>>>>>> aloud from some children?s book, ?I am now going to tell you a very strange >>>>>>>>>>>> story that sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is >>>>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? Only it doesn?t take that many words. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene >>>>>>>>>>>> [1080] - YouTube >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and >>>>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is >>>>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this >>>>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It?s not just cooperative, it?s >>>>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera >>>>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a >>>>>>>>>>>> co-construction ?at the speed of thought?. Heady stuff taking part, or >>>>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people. And >>>>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken >>>>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It?s simplistic to restrict >>>>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically >>>>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find >>>>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction >>>>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of >>>>>>>>>>>> language in the senses. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the >>>>>>>>>>>> notion of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and >>>>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with >>>>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Much obliged. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden < >>>>>>>>>>>> andyb@marxists.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in >>>>>>>>>>>> so-called mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of >>>>>>>>>>>> others. It seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically participating in projects in which individuals share a common >>>>>>>>>>>> not-present object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary >>>>>>>>>>>> perceptive abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed >>>>>>>>>>>> gratification, as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter >>>>>>>>>>>> of fact, is an important aspect of sociality fostering the development of >>>>>>>>>>>> speech, and the upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back >>>>>>>>>>>> to camp where it can be shared is important. None of which presupposes >>>>>>>>>>>> tools, only cooperation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech >>>>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came >>>>>>>>>>>> into being, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became >>>>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational >>>>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human >>>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden < >>>>>>>>>>>> andyb@marxists.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am >>>>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at >>>>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of >>>>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that >>>>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it >>>>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before >>>>>>>>>>>> speech was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is >>>>>>>>>>>> always present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it >>>>>>>>>>>> come into being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where >>>>>>>>>>>> it made sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to >>>>>>>>>>>> begin with they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make >>>>>>>>>>>> facial expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference >>>>>>>>>>>> non-present entities and situations) This is an activity which further >>>>>>>>>>>> produces the conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions >>>>>>>>>>>> of years, the vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due >>>>>>>>>>>> to the practice of non-speech communication as an integral part of their >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech >>>>>>>>>>>> gradually became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions and hand movements. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity >>>>>>>>>>>> must have been a part of those conditions fostering communication >>>>>>>>>>>> (something found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the >>>>>>>>>>>> elements of rudimentary speech) - as was increasing tool-using, >>>>>>>>>>>> tool-making, tool-giving and tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge >>>>>>>>>>>> of articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fordham University >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or >>>>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. >>>>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on >>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content >>>>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may >>>>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not >>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are >>>>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the >>>>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> 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 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181220/0741e872/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Dec 20 18:37:57 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:37:57 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Analytical and Continental In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: <49a1d020-0dae-7206-6ac1-ae5187d3bc7a@marxists.org> James, according to Wikipedia's entry, Hegel is a part of "continental philosophy," but this is an anachronism really, because the tribal division is a 20th century phenomenon and affects mainly university departments in the Anglosphere. Continental philosophers like to cite Hegel and Marx, but I don't think we can count these writers as part of Continental Philosophy. In any case, people interested in CHAT are going to be outside of that argument. In the tradition that I identify with Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky we value natural science in a way which is uncharacteristic of Continental Philosophy, but also value meta-philosophical considerations over formal-logical argument in a way which is uncharacteristic of Analytical Philosophy. As I think I said in the previous message the people we find in philosophy departments most sympathetic to CHAT concerns are the Pragmatists. Dewey was trained as a Hegelian and James got his scientific education in 19th century Germany, still affected by German Idealism. Peirce seems to try to unite the virtues of both currents in his own way, too. Hegelian Philosophers like Robert Pippin and Charles Taylor recognise their own affinity with the Pragmatist school, and recent Pragmatist Philosophers like Richard Rorty and Robert Putnam accept the disciplines of Analytical Philosophy while making an effort to appropriate Hegel. Myself, I have never attended a university course in Philosophy, any more than I have attended any course in Psychology, so I cannot be part of either current. Personally, I remain of the view that it is Hegel and Marx who provide the meta-concepts needed to develop Vygotsky's legacy in Psychology and Social Theory, and I don't see a lot of prospects in either the Analytical or Continental Philosophical traditions in themselves. What do you think? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > > Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few > brief?points, linking with some of your comments: > > ... > Third, on hearing that you are "definitely not an > Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental > philosopher either", it's not surprising that in my last > email the paragraph beginning "More specifically..." > doesn't make much sense to you.? That paragraph reflects > a?take on consciousness and language informed by > phenomenology and post-structuralism. Phenomenology gave > way to post-structuralism in the 1960s, prior to which > Heidegger and Sartre had taken phenomenology to a > direction different to Husserl.? However, Heidegger's > theory as mainly presented in "Being and Time", albeit > provocative and much disputed, has?long been a landmark of > modern thought in philosophy and beyond.? Funnily enough, > when reading your comments, my first impulse was > recollection of you remarking that phenomenology was not > for you and that Heidegger was a flawed personality! > > After all, perhaps we all have a Dasein unique to > ourselves. Our different disciplinary interests lead to > different ontological positions that influence our views > on how we should know what we know!? Sometimes synergistic > meaning-making without emotion?may be fruitful and > illuminating. > > James > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 01:50, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > (1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy > This is the tribal division which divides philosophy > departments across the Anglosphere into rival, mutually > incomprehensible tribes. My lights - Hegel, Marx and > Vygotsky - are certainly not part of Analytical Philosophy > but are not really Continentals either. The Pragmatists - > from Dewey, James and Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are > not quite Analytical Philosophers, but these are the only > Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am definitely > not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a > Continental philosopher either. All the people I like are > "in between." > > (2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?" > This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, as a > Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a Subjective Idealist. > > (3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the > world or that the experience of a human subject makes > these objects meaningful?" > Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean > otherwise, so something of this kind must be the case. > > (4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph beginning > "More specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's view of the > mutually interconnected development of verbal intellect > and intelligent speech (whether verbal or signed). I don't > want to add anything to what Vygotsky said in "Thinking > and Speech." > > (5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? > I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is a > powerful one and can be utilised consistently with > Vygotsky's views on the solution of relevant problems. But > the thing is that consciousness is not something which in > itself has any impact on the external world, only > mediately through the physiology of the thinking body and > material objects wielded by the body. You strangely leap > from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's Semiology when you > say: "consciousness is the signifying and the signified." > How can consciousness signify if it is not empirically > given? Unless you are just referencing an "internal world" > here? > > (6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language"? > As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like structuralism > or functionalism or behaviourism), an extremely powerful > approach, for the objective analysis of culture in the > sense of a mass of interconnected objects and behaviours. > The context in which I was speaking was the phylogenetic > origins of language. Treating language as a natural > process subject to objective analysis just like geological > formations or the structure of ecosystems, or whatever, > ruled out Semiotics as providing the explanation for why > language is essentially not just a system of signs,- that > a chimp screeching in fright and causing another chimp to > run away, is essentially different from a chimp calling > out: "There's a wolf coming!" and another chimp responding > by calling out "Stop playing games, Charlie! You scared > the life out of me." Even old Spinoza took the essential > issue, not to have emotions, but to be able to control > one's emotions and one's response to emotions. > > Whatever your ontological position, there remains a real > puzzle: how did homo sapiens sapiens evolve? What is it > that was the essential driver in forming our > unquestionably unique species. Many answer that it is > language, and it is not unreasonable to re-pose the > original question: how did language-using evolve? If the > analytical tools you bring to bear can't make a > fundamental distinction between language-using and any > other semiotic process, then that tool is of no use for > the task at hand. > > Andy > > > On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 22:15, James Ma > > wrote: > > Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said: > "Language is an essential part of a specific form of > life, namely human life, in which consciousness > mediates between stimulus and response, and that > consciousness cannot in itself be a sign".?I found > this interesting - would it encapsulate an idealistic > view of reality as a creation of minds or mental > states? Are you saying that consciousness bestows > meaning to the objects of the world or that the > experience of a human subject makes these objects > meaningful? > > More specifically, linking consciousness with > language, do you consider both the intentionality of > consciousness and the linguistic structures as > described in analytical philosophy (I guess you're > more of an analytical philosopher)? I wondered, in > your view,?what would?serve as?a foundation for > knowledge, if human subjects had no recourse to the > narratives of "transcendent being" or "higher being". > I'm interested in Wittgenstein and Husserl, both of > whom examined language and consciousness. Wittgenstein > saw limits in what philosophy could do in terms of > explaining and understanding; Husserl stressed limits > in articulating or communicating consciousness. Can > you comment on this and perhaps how it might be > implicated in your position? > > Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in > itself be a sign"? As I see it, consciousness is the > signifying and the signified, both of which evolve as > consciousness evolves. In Peirce's terms, > consciousness is a semiosis. > > In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the > Peircean sense is "not language". Reading Peirce, I've > found it intriguing that a great deal of his > pragmaticism (as distinguished from William James's > pragmatism) can be packed into his semiosis. It seems > that his semiosis might be?studied against the > backdrop of his pragmaticism (which provides a > conceptual basis for his tripartite of the sign). As I > see it, Peircean pragmatism is?also a theory of > meaning, indicative of the role of language in making > clear what we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is > meant by "going around the tree" in William James's > "squirrel on the tree"). > > This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far > on Xmca-I. I'm busy again from tomorrow but will > be?joyfully watching how it develops in the background! > > James > > > */________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa / > > / > / > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 04:35, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, > like Peirce's semiotics, take the subject (in the > sense of a moral agent) out of a process have an > important place in analysis. The same could be > said of Structuralism and even Marx's Capital > (though it could be argued that for Marx capital > is a subject). One can of course study language > from a purely structural standpoint, or purely > semiotic standpoint. But my point is that language > (languaging?) is not just a system of signs. > Language is an essential part of a specific form > of life, namely human life, in which consciousness > mediates between stimulus and response, and that > consciousness cannot in itself be a sign. > > I think Peirce says that the self is a > concentrated group, or something of the kind. > Peirce is fine. But subjects do not (generally) > create words /de novo/; interactions (with other > and self) is mediated by use of an > already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics > /can/ be used to analyse that objectively-existing > culture, but close as it comes to a concept of the > Subject, I don't think it can get there. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote: >> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game! >> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly >> "behind"!) >> >> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it >> makes me wonder what you've concluded with regard >> to Colapietro's characterization of Peirce's >> notion of the self? I believe you were the one >> who shared it with me but from your tone here I >> assume that you feel that it falls short in >> theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on >> that any? Particularly with regard to the >> shortcomings of the theory? >> >> -greg >> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we >> might turn the metaphor back to the original >> thread by noting(!) that we are simply "playing >> different tunes"? >> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...] >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden >> > >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am >> thoroughly behind the game! :) Thank you. >> >> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great >> advantage in that it does /not /include the >> category of Subject in its triads (e.g. sign >> | interpretant | object). This means that it >> can be used for the analysis of /objective/ >> processes. When used in this way it does not >> imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of >> Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my >> objection to James's observation. Speech and >> gesture has a subject. >> >> The other minor point I would make about your >> very erudite response is that I think we >> should not be too apologetic about using the >> concept of "mind." True, mind is not a >> sensible entity, but in all human >> interactions we deduce the state of minds >> from the observable behaviour, and in fact >> (scientific or everyday) human behaviour is >> incomprehensible without the presumption that >> it is mindful to this or that extent. >> Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and >> Chomsky would murder us! :) >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> My short response would depend on whether >>> you'd prefer to be critical or charitable >>> toward linguistic anthropologists. >>> >>> The critical approach would say that with a >>> few exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul >>> Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among >>> others), you are right. >>> >>> The charitable approach would say that >>> linguistic anthropologists are in fact >>> dealing with precisely the things that you >>> are talking about. Most of the ones that I >>> know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. >>> Most of them are grappling with issues of >>> practice, not just studying formal >>> structures that exist in someplace called >>> "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In >>> fact, one of the greatest insults to the >>> linguistic anthropologists that I know is to >>> call them a "butterfly collector" - that is >>> to say, a mere documenter of language >>> variation across the globe. Most of the ones >>> I know are in fact very mindful of >>> understanding the practical consequences of >>> semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads >>> Benjamin Lee makes precisely the point that >>> you are making through his deployment of >>> Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a >>> means of grasping semiosis as a lived >>> practice rather than one that exists only in >>> the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to >>> semiotics would suggest). >>> >>> The critical approach is nice because you >>> can just dispense with linguistic >>> anthropology and all their gobbly-gook >>> jargon as irrelevant. The charitable >>> approach might suggest that we should at >>> least acknowledge their project. That's all >>> I was hoping to do. I figured that there >>> might be a few who are interested, but most >>> on the listserve will find that it wasn't >>> worth investing the time - and I don't blame >>> them! (as someone in this goofy world of >>> academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact >>> that learning the language of an entirely >>> new system is a major time commitment and >>> only worth it in rare cases). >>> >>> I think things get a bit more complicated >>> when we get to the issue of the semiosis of >>> non-human agents that you seemed to be >>> poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How >>> Forests Think). I understand that you are >>> very much a humanist and don't like this >>> approach for some very fundamental reasons. >>> I'm not entirely committed to this position >>> (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to >>> make the case for this position - unless you >>> are really genuinely interested. And >>> besides, I'm already well beyond your one >>> screen rule! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> greg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> So I gather confirmation from your >>> message, Greg: "most of the >>> anthropologists I know, linguistic or >>> otherwise, don't have much interest in >>> talking about such things as >>> psychological functioning" and >>> therefore, it seems to me, little >>> interest in what people do as well as >>> what they think. In other words, the >>> turn to seeing language as a system of >>> Peircean signs is an entirely *formal* >>> project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or >>> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be >>> formally analysed with the same set of >>> concepts as the babbling of a group of >>> humans in conversation. But this is >>> purely formal, superficial and obscures >>> what is expressed and transacted in the >>> human babble. >>> >>> I can understand the fascination in such >>> formal disciplines, I accept that >>> Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of >>> analysis, and often insights come out >>> from such formal disciplines relevant to >>> the real world (mathematics being the >>> supreme example), but ....! One really >>> has to keep in mind that words are not >>> Peircean signs. To answer the question >>> of how it is that humans alone have >>> language by saying that everything has >>> language, even inanimate processes (and >>> this is how I interpret the equation of >>> language with Peircean signs), is >>> somewhat more than missing the point. >>> >>> As an example of how such formal >>> processes lead to grave errors is the >>> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to >>> exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of >>> language. And yet to hold that an actual >>> biological, neuronal formation as a LAD >>> exists in all human beings in quite >>> inconsistent with the foundations of >>> biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. >>> Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not both. >>> Which tells me that there is a problem >>> with this formal analysis, even though I >>> gasp in wonder every time Google manages >>> to correctly parse an ordinary language >>> question I ask it and deliver very >>> relevant answers. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote: >>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to >>>> this group for precisely the reasons >>>> Helena mentioned previously (the >>>> proliferation of technical languages in >>>> different fields and the time-intensive >>>> labor of translating terms/meanings of >>>> entire systems of thinking from one of >>>> these fields to the next). Add the fact >>>> that there are few who have much >>>> interest in one of the field of >>>> linguistic anthropology (and esp. how >>>> ling anthro has taken up Peicean >>>> semiotics - a tangle of words in its >>>> own right), and this means the >>>> following post will likely remain an >>>> orphan (not at all because of anyone's >>>> ill intentions but simply because this >>>> is an impossible situation for anyone >>>> to commit to learning an entirely new >>>> language for talking about language!).] >>>> >>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that >>>> you would point to (!) the indexical >>>> and iconic potentials of SPOKEN >>>> language while noting that this >>>> flattens the oft-made distinction >>>> between gesture and the spoken word? >>>> Our dominant ideology of language tends >>>> to assume that spoken language is >>>> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only >>>> indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion >>>> of indexical and iconic functions >>>> offers us a way into seeing how spoken >>>> language is also indexical and iconic >>>> (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed >>>> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course >>>> he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and >>>> "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to >>>> his project). >>>> >>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman >>>> Jakobson was one of the first to point >>>> to the problem of this dominant >>>> ideology of language, and Michael >>>> Silverstein has made a rather >>>> substantial career off of this simple >>>> point, first elaborated in his famous >>>> 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then >>>> in numerous other works. Many others >>>> working in linguistic anthropology have >>>> spent the last 40 years expanding on >>>> this project by exploring the indexical >>>> and iconic nature of spoken language in >>>> the concepts of "indexicality" and >>>> "iconization". More recently linguistic >>>> anthropologists have considered the >>>> processes by which sign-functions can >>>> shift from one function to another - >>>> e.g., rhematization - from indexical or >>>> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and >>>> Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - >>>> from symbolic or iconic to >>>> indexical?(see Webb Keane's and Chris >>>> Ball's work). And others have looked at >>>> more basic features of sign-functioning >>>> such as the realization of qualia (see >>>> Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' >>>> special issue in Anthro theory). >>>> >>>> The relevance of all this for the >>>> present list serve is that the >>>> processes being described by these >>>> linguistic anthropologists are >>>> fundamental to understanding human >>>> psychological functioning and yet most >>>> of the anthropologists I know, >>>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have >>>> much interest in talking about such >>>> things as psychological functioning >>>> (one exception here is Paul Kockelman, >>>> e.g., in his book Person, Agent, >>>> Subject, Self - although beware that >>>> his writing is just as dense as >>>> Peirce's!). Anyway, I suspect that this >>>> could be a particularly productive >>>> intersection for development. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -greg >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY >>>> SHONERD >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Right on, James! >>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, >>>>> James Ma >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I >>>>> discussion to be exploratory and >>>>> free style, allowing for the >>>>> coexistence of subjectness and >>>>> subjectless. When it comes to >>>>> scholarly writing, we know we will >>>>> switch the code. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>> > ? >>>>> 2018?11?29??? 18:58??? >>>>> >>>>> James, >>>>> This conversation has been so >>>>> satisfying I don?t want to let >>>>> go of it, so I hope I am not >>>>> tiring you or others with all >>>>> the connections I find. But, >>>>> in the spirit of Alfredo?s >>>>> post, I?ll just keep on >>>>> talking and remark on how the >>>>> duck tail hair cut is a rich >>>>> gesture, an important concept >>>>> in this subject line. Gesture >>>>> is an aspect of communication >>>>> present in many species. >>>>> Hence, the importance of >>>>> gesture as a rudimentary form >>>>> of language with evolutionary >>>>> results in human language. >>>>> Maybe this is a reach, but I >>>>> see the business of quotes in >>>>> the subject line now taking >>>>> place (Anna Stetsenko and >>>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, >>>>> contributing right now) on the >>>>> last chapter of Vygotsky?s >>>>> Speech and Language as an >>>>> issue of gesture. Language, >>>>> written language in this case, >>>>> is limited in its ability to >>>>> provide nuance. Writing >>>>> without quotes ?gestured?, >>>>> pointed to to author sources >>>>> familar in the day that >>>>> Vygotsky wrote, such that >>>>> quotes were not necessary. Dan >>>>> Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ >>>>> of Calf, wrote that two >>>>> charges of language where in >>>>> ?tension?: 1) make yourself >>>>> clear and 2) get it said >>>>> before losing the thread of >>>>> thinking and talking. Gesture, >>>>> I would like to argue, is an >>>>> aspect of discourse that helps >>>>> to address this tension. A >>>>> turn (in discourse) is a >>>>> gesture, with temporal >>>>> constraints that belie the >>>>> idea that a single turn can >>>>> ever be totally clear in and >>>>> of itself. Writing, as we are >>>>> doing now, is always dialogic, >>>>> even a whole book, is a turn >>>>> in discourse. And we keep on >>>>> posting our turns. >>>>> Henry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, >>>>>> James Ma >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot >>>>>> on?for this?subject line! >>>>>> >>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is >>>>>> fabulous. Funnily >>>>>> enough,?it?is?what my brother >>>>>> would?always?like?his >>>>>> 9-year-old son to >>>>>> have?because he has much >>>>>> thicker hair than most boys. >>>>>> Unfortunately?last year the >>>>>> boy had a?one-day?show off >>>>>> in?the classroom?and >>>>>> was?ticked off by?the >>>>>> school?authority (in >>>>>> China).?However,?my brother >>>>>> has?managed to >>>>>> restore?the?ducktail twice a >>>>>> year during?the boy's?long >>>>>> school holiday in winter and >>>>>> summer! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose the outlines of >>>>>> conversation are predictable >>>>>> due to participants' >>>>>> intersubjective awareness of >>>>>> the subject. Yet,?the nuances >>>>>> of conversation (just like >>>>>> each individual's ducktail >>>>>> unique?to himself)?are >>>>>> unpredictable because of the >>>>>> waywardness of?our mind. >>>>>> What's more, >>>>>> such?nuances?create the >>>>>> fluidity of conversation >>>>>> which makes it?difficult (or >>>>>> even?unnecessary) >>>>>> to?predict?what comes next - >>>>>> this is perhaps the whole >>>>>> point that keeps?us?talking, >>>>>> as Alfredo pointed out?earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, >>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Back at you, James. The >>>>>> images of the mandarin >>>>>> drake reminded me of a >>>>>> hair style popularin the >>>>>> late 50s when I was in >>>>>> high school (grades >>>>>> 9-12): ducktail haircuts >>>>>> images >>>>>> . >>>>>> One of the photos in the >>>>>> link is of Elvis Presley, >>>>>> an alpha male high school >>>>>> boys sought to emulate. >>>>>> Note that some of the >>>>>> photos are of women, >>>>>> interesting in light of >>>>>> issues of gender fluidity >>>>>> these days. I don?t >>>>>> remember when women >>>>>> started taking on the >>>>>> hair style. Since I >>>>>> mentioned Elvis Presley, >>>>>> this post counts as >>>>>> relevant to the subject >>>>>> line! Ha! >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 >>>>>>> AM, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Henry. >>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, >>>>>>> just thought you might >>>>>>> like to see: >>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ? 2018?11?27??? >>>>>>> 19:30??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a beautiful >>>>>>> photo, James, and >>>>>>> providing it is a >>>>>>> move on this subject >>>>>>> line that >>>>>>> instantiates nicely >>>>>>> Gee?s conception of >>>>>>> discourse. Thanks >>>>>>> for your thoughtful >>>>>>> and helpful response. >>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at >>>>>>>> 11:11 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for >>>>>>>> the info on Derek >>>>>>>> Bickerton. One of >>>>>>>> the interesting >>>>>>>> things is his >>>>>>>> conception of >>>>>>>> displacement as the >>>>>>>> hallmark of >>>>>>>> language, whether >>>>>>>> iconic, indexical >>>>>>>> or symbolic. In the >>>>>>>> case of Chinese >>>>>>>> language, the >>>>>>>> sounds are >>>>>>>> decontextualised or >>>>>>>> sublimated over >>>>>>>> time to become >>>>>>>> something more >>>>>>>> integrated into the >>>>>>>> words themselves as >>>>>>>> ideographs. Some of >>>>>>>> Bickerton's ideas >>>>>>>> are suggestive of >>>>>>>> the study of >>>>>>>> protolanguage as an >>>>>>>> /a priori /process, >>>>>>>> involving >>>>>>>> scrupulous >>>>>>>> deduction. This >>>>>>>> reminds me of >>>>>>>> methods used in >>>>>>>> diachronic >>>>>>>> linguistics, which >>>>>>>> I felt are relevant >>>>>>>> to CHAT just as >>>>>>>> much as those used >>>>>>>> in synchronic >>>>>>>> linguistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding >>>>>>>> "intermental" and >>>>>>>> "intramental", I >>>>>>>> can see your point. >>>>>>>> In fact I >>>>>>>> don't?take >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> "interpsychological" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "intrapsychological" >>>>>>>> categories?to >>>>>>>> be?dichotomies or >>>>>>>> binary opposites. >>>>>>>> Whenever it comes >>>>>>>> to their >>>>>>>> relationship, I >>>>>>>> tend to have a >>>>>>>> post-structuralism >>>>>>>> imagery present in >>>>>>>> my mind, >>>>>>>> particularly >>>>>>>> related to a >>>>>>>> Derridean stance >>>>>>>> for the conception >>>>>>>> of ideas (i.e.any >>>>>>>> idea is not >>>>>>>> entirely distinct >>>>>>>> from other ideas in >>>>>>>> terms of the "thing >>>>>>>> itself"; rather, it >>>>>>>> entails a >>>>>>>> supplement of the >>>>>>>> other idea which >>>>>>>> is?already embedded >>>>>>>> in the self). >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's two >>>>>>>> categoriesare >>>>>>>> relational >>>>>>>> (dialectical); they >>>>>>>> are somehow like a >>>>>>>> pair of mandarin >>>>>>>> ducks (see attached >>>>>>>> image). I also like >>>>>>>> to think that each >>>>>>>> of these categories >>>>>>>> is both >>>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" >>>>>>>> (here discourse is >>>>>>>> in tune with James >>>>>>>> Gee's conception of >>>>>>>> discourse as a >>>>>>>> patchwork of >>>>>>>> actions, >>>>>>>> interactions, >>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings >>>>>>>> etc). I recall >>>>>>>> Barbara Rogoff >>>>>>>> talking about there >>>>>>>> being no boundary >>>>>>>> between the >>>>>>>> external and the >>>>>>>> internal or the >>>>>>>> boundary being >>>>>>>> blurred (during her >>>>>>>> seminar?in?the >>>>>>>> Graduate School of >>>>>>>> Education at >>>>>>>> Bristol in 2001 >>>>>>>> while?I was?doing >>>>>>>> my PhD). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 >>>>>>>> at 23:14, HENRY >>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James, >>>>>>>> I think it was >>>>>>>> Derek Bickerton >>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) >>>>>>>> who argued that >>>>>>>> ?formal syntax? >>>>>>>> developed from >>>>>>>> stringing >>>>>>>> together turns >>>>>>>> in verbal >>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>> The wiki on >>>>>>>> Bickerton I >>>>>>>> have linked is >>>>>>>> short and >>>>>>>> raises issues >>>>>>>> discussed in >>>>>>>> this subject >>>>>>>> line and in the >>>>>>>> subject line on >>>>>>>> Corballis. >>>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>>> brings me back >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> circularity of >>>>>>>> discourse and >>>>>>>> the development >>>>>>>> of discourse >>>>>>>> competence. >>>>>>>> Usage-based >>>>>>>> grammar. >>>>>>>> Bickerton?s >>>>>>>> idea that >>>>>>>> complex grammar >>>>>>>> developed out >>>>>>>> of the pidgins >>>>>>>> of our >>>>>>>> ancestors is >>>>>>>> interesting. Do >>>>>>>> I see a >>>>>>>> chicken/egg >>>>>>>> problem that >>>>>>>> for Vygotsky, >>>>>>>> ??the >>>>>>>> intramental >>>>>>>> forms of >>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>> mediation is >>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>> understood by >>>>>>>> examining the >>>>>>>> types of >>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>> processes?? I >>>>>>>> don?t know. >>>>>>>> Could one say >>>>>>>> that inner >>>>>>>> speech is the >>>>>>>> vehicle for >>>>>>>> turning >>>>>>>> discourse into >>>>>>>> grammar? >>>>>>>> Bickerton >>>>>>>> claimed a >>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>> biological >>>>>>>> component to >>>>>>>> human language, >>>>>>>> though I don?t >>>>>>>> remember if he >>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>> Chomskian. I >>>>>>>> hope this is >>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>> thinking in the >>>>>>>> context of our >>>>>>>> conversation. >>>>>>>> All that jazz. >>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, >>>>>>>>> 2018, at 3:22 >>>>>>>>> PM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd >>>>>>>>> agree with >>>>>>>>> Greg - >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> is relevant >>>>>>>>> and pertinent >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>> transcends >>>>>>>>> "outlines"?or >>>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>>> sublimates the >>>>>>>>> "muddledness" >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> (as in >>>>>>>>> Bateson's >>>>>>>>> metalogue) >>>>>>>>> into what >>>>>>>>> Rommetveit >>>>>>>>> termed?the >>>>>>>>> "draft of a >>>>>>>>> contract". >>>>>>>>> This is >>>>>>>>> because shared >>>>>>>>> understanding?makes >>>>>>>>> explicit and >>>>>>>>> external what >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>>> remain >>>>>>>>> implicit and >>>>>>>>> internal. >>>>>>>>> Rommetveit >>>>>>>>> argues >>>>>>>>> that?private >>>>>>>>> worlds can >>>>>>>>> only be >>>>>>>>> transcended up >>>>>>>>> to a certain >>>>>>>>> level and >>>>>>>>> interlocutors >>>>>>>>> need to agree >>>>>>>>> upon?the?draft >>>>>>>>> of a contract >>>>>>>>> with which the >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>> initiated. In >>>>>>>>> the spirit of >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, he >>>>>>>>> uses a >>>>>>>>> "pluralistic" >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" >>>>>>>>> approach to >>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>> - and >>>>>>>>> especially to >>>>>>>>> the problem of >>>>>>>>> linguistic >>>>>>>>> mediation and >>>>>>>>> regulation in >>>>>>>>> interpsychological >>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>> with reference >>>>>>>>> to semantics, >>>>>>>>> syntactics and >>>>>>>>> pragmatics.?For >>>>>>>>> him, >>>>>>>>> the?intramental >>>>>>>>> forms of >>>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>>> mediation?is >>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>> understood?by >>>>>>>>> examining the >>>>>>>>> types of >>>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think?these >>>>>>>>> intermental >>>>>>>>> processes >>>>>>>>> (just?like >>>>>>>>> intramental >>>>>>>>> ones) can be >>>>>>>>> boiled down or >>>>>>>>> distilled?to >>>>>>>>> signs and >>>>>>>>> symbols with >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> interlocutors >>>>>>>>> are in harmony >>>>>>>>> during?a >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> or any other >>>>>>>>> joint activities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /*James Ma >>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov >>>>>>>>> 2018 at 08:09, >>>>>>>>> Alfredo Jornet >>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Henry's >>>>>>>>> remarks >>>>>>>>> about no >>>>>>>>> directors >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> symphonic >>>>>>>>> potential?of >>>>>>>>> conversation?reminded >>>>>>>>> me?of >>>>>>>>> G.?Bateson's >>>>>>>>> metalogue >>>>>>>>> "why do >>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> outlines" >>>>>>>>> (attached).?Implicitly, >>>>>>>>> it raises >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>>> of units >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> elements, >>>>>>>>> of how a >>>>>>>>> song, a >>>>>>>>> dance,?a >>>>>>>>> poem, a >>>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>>> to make >>>>>>>>> sense, >>>>>>>>> they must >>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>> recognizable >>>>>>>>> outline, >>>>>>>>> even in >>>>>>>>> improvisation; >>>>>>>>> they must >>>>>>>>> be wholes, >>>>>>>>> or suggest >>>>>>>>> wholes. >>>>>>>>> That makes >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>> "predictable".?And >>>>>>>>> yet, when >>>>>>>>> you are >>>>>>>>> immersed >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> conversation, >>>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> never?exactly?predict >>>>>>>>> what comes >>>>>>>>> next is >>>>>>>>> the whole >>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>> that?keep >>>>>>>>> us?talking, >>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>> drawing, etc! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:* >>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> on behalf >>>>>>>>> of HENRY >>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 >>>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>>> 2018 06:22 >>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> and music >>>>>>>>> I?d like >>>>>>>>> to add to >>>>>>>>> the call >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> discourse, >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> itself, is >>>>>>>>> staged. >>>>>>>>> There are >>>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>>> and and an >>>>>>>>> audience >>>>>>>>> made up >>>>>>>>> partly of >>>>>>>>> performers >>>>>>>>> themselves. >>>>>>>>> How many >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> lurkers, >>>>>>>>> as I am >>>>>>>>> usually? >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>>> director, >>>>>>>>> but there >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> leaders. >>>>>>>>> There is >>>>>>>>> symphonic >>>>>>>>> potential. >>>>>>>>> And even >>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>> potential, >>>>>>>>> making the >>>>>>>>> chat a >>>>>>>>> dance. All >>>>>>>>> on line.:) >>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov >>>>>>>>>> 20, 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at 9:05 >>>>>>>>>> PM, mike >>>>>>>>>> cole >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For many >>>>>>>>>> years I >>>>>>>>>> used the >>>>>>>>>> work of >>>>>>>>>> Ellen >>>>>>>>>> Dissenyake >>>>>>>>>> to teach >>>>>>>>>> comm >>>>>>>>>> classes >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> language/music/development. >>>>>>>>>> She is >>>>>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>>>> unusual >>>>>>>>>> in ways >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, >>>>>>>>>> Nov 17, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 at >>>>>>>>>> 2:16 PM >>>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>>>>> Simangele, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> semiotic >>>>>>>>>> terms, >>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> constructed >>>>>>>>>> internally >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> signified, >>>>>>>>>> i.e. >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>> vocalised >>>>>>>>>> (spoken >>>>>>>>>> out), >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> becomes >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> signifier >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> listener. >>>>>>>>>> What's >>>>>>>>>> more, >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> signifiers >>>>>>>>>> turns >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> a new >>>>>>>>>> signified >>>>>>>>>> ? a >>>>>>>>>> shared, >>>>>>>>>> newly-established >>>>>>>>>> understanding, >>>>>>>>>> woven >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> fabric >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> meaning >>>>>>>>>> making. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> way, >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>>> language, >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>> inseparably. >>>>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>> it,?they >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> semiotically >>>>>>>>>> indexed >>>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> adjusted >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> allow >>>>>>>>>> for, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> feelings, >>>>>>>>>> emotions, >>>>>>>>>> actions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> interactions >>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>> consciousness >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> experiencing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing. >>>>>>>>>> Here >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> idioms: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> rapturously >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> club >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> citizens >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> ancient >>>>>>>>>> Yan >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Zhao >>>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>> hence >>>>>>>>>> referring >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>> songs >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dances >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ????- >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> church >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> building >>>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /*James >>>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>>>> *Independent >>>>>>>>>> Scholar >>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Sat, >>>>>>>>>> 17 >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 19:08, >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> Mayisela >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Colleagues, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> getting >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> interesting, >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> informed >>>>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> Rob, >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>>> Anthems >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> stand >>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> singing, >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> international >>>>>>>>>> events. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> death >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> mood >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> sombre. >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> rhythmic >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> movement, >>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>> dance >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> norm. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> ?wonder >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> terms >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> cognitive >>>>>>>>>> functioning, >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> light >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>>> developmental >>>>>>>>>> stages >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>>> Would >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> movement >>>>>>>>>> constitute >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> externalisation >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>>>> contained >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> music? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> video >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> reminds >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> teaching >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>> technique- >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> learners >>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> OD >>>>>>>>>> settings) >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> instructed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>> coherent >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>> turns >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> sentence, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>> (depending >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> instructor >>>>>>>>>> ), >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>> linking >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>>> articulator, >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>> person >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> same, >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> conclusion. >>>>>>>>>> More >>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> impromptu, >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>> stories >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> dynamics >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> analysed, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> therapy >>>>>>>>>> cases, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> trauma >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> shared.? >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> suppose >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> although >>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> ?activity? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Simangele >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>>>>> *On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>>>> Of >>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* >>>>>>>>>> Friday, >>>>>>>>>> 16 >>>>>>>>>> November >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> 21:01 >>>>>>>>>> *To:* >>>>>>>>>> eXtended >>>>>>>>>> Mind, >>>>>>>>>> Culture, >>>>>>>>>> Activity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >; >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* >>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] >>>>>>>>>> Re: >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> C. >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> told >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> dancing, >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> sing >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> western >>>>>>>>>> civilisation >>>>>>>>>> beats >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does >>>>>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>> cod? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>> body >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 17:29, >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> going. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> Theories >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Literacy >>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> Glynda >>>>>>>>>> Hull, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> instructor, >>>>>>>>>> showed >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> video >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> singing >>>>>>>>>> circle >>>>>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Amazon, >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> phrases >>>>>>>>>> wove >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> singers >>>>>>>>>> underlaid >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> drumming >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response, >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>>>>> 20 >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> involved, >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> pushing >>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>> steam >>>>>>>>>> ahead >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> seemed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t >>>>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Certainly >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> studied >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> relationship >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (improvised >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> otherwise), >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture? >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>>> musicians >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>> blank >>>>>>>>>> looks. >>>>>>>>>> Yet >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> listen >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> music, >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> drum >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> chant >>>>>>>>>> circles, >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> kind >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> Sonata >>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> involves >>>>>>>>>> exposition >>>>>>>>>> (they >>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> word). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> soundtrack >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Coen >>>>>>>>>> Brothers? >>>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> opens >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> musical >>>>>>>>>> theme >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> says, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>>> aloud >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> children?s >>>>>>>>>> book, >>>>>>>>>> ?I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> strange >>>>>>>>>> story >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> sounds >>>>>>>>>> impossible >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> true?da-de-da-de-da.? >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (18) >>>>>>>>>> Fargo >>>>>>>>>> (1996) >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo, >>>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>>> Dakota' >>>>>>>>>> (Opening) >>>>>>>>>> scene >>>>>>>>>> [1080] >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> YouTube >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helena >>>>>>>>>> Worthen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, >>>>>>>>>> CA >>>>>>>>>> 94707 >>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blog >>>>>>>>>> US/ >>>>>>>>>> Viet >>>>>>>>>> Nam: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> skype: >>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:56 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> HENRY >>>>>>>>>> SHONERD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> turn >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> principle >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> music >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> nicely: >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>> By >>>>>>>>>> voice >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> ear. >>>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> face-to-face >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> rhythmically >>>>>>>>>> entrained >>>>>>>>>> interaction. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> cooperative, >>>>>>>>>> it?s >>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> art. >>>>>>>>>> Vera >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> Holbrook >>>>>>>>>> Mahn >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> talked >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> conversation >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> co-construction >>>>>>>>>> ?at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> speed >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> thought?. >>>>>>>>>> Heady >>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>> part, >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>>> people.? >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> disheartening >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> destructive >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> dialog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>>> this, >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> prosodic >>>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> spoken >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> (intonation) >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> gestural >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>> It?s >>>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> restrict >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> visual >>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> gesture >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> prototypically >>>>>>>>>> visual, >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> accompaniment >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> voice. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> surfing >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> web, >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> paralanguage >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> complicate >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> distinction >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> speaks >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> embodiment >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> senses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Henry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018, >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 7:00 >>>>>>>>>> AM, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> couldn't >>>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> introducing >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> notion >>>>>>>>>> of?delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> hadn't >>>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> connection >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>> participant >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> exercise >>>>>>>>>> patience >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> order >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> wait >>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>>>> else's >>>>>>>>>> turn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>>> obliged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Fri, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 8:50 >>>>>>>>>> AM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>>>>> Peter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Corballis, >>>>>>>>>> oddly >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>> view, >>>>>>>>>> places >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> weight >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> so-called >>>>>>>>>> mirror >>>>>>>>>> neurons >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>> perception >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> intentionality >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> blindingly >>>>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity, >>>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>>> participating >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> individuals >>>>>>>>>> share >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> common >>>>>>>>>> not-present >>>>>>>>>> object, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> begets >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>>>>> perceptive >>>>>>>>>> abilities. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> delayed >>>>>>>>>> gratification, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> precondition >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> turn-taking, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> important >>>>>>>>>> aspect >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> sociality >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> upright >>>>>>>>>> gait >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> frees >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> hands >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> carrying >>>>>>>>>> food >>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> shared >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> important. >>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> presupposes >>>>>>>>>> tools, >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> cooperation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:36 >>>>>>>>>> am, >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum >>>>>>>>>> [Staff] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>> chime >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> discussion: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> cooperative >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> underlying >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> rule >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> did, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> *exchanging* >>>>>>>>>> utterances >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> exchange >>>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> complementarity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> listening >>>>>>>>>> roles, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> alternating >>>>>>>>>> conversational >>>>>>>>>> roles >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>>>> perspectives.?Turn-taking >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> human >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> Thu, >>>>>>>>>> Nov >>>>>>>>>> 15, >>>>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> 9:21 >>>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oddly, >>>>>>>>>> Amazon >>>>>>>>>> delivered >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> yesterday >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> p.5. >>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, >>>>>>>>>> Corballis >>>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> synopsis >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> end, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed >>>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>>> night. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> claim, >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Merlin >>>>>>>>>> Donald, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> goes >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> absurd >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> discovered >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> unique >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> wonderful >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> speech. >>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> humanly >>>>>>>>>> possible_. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> development, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> physiological >>>>>>>>>> adaptations >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> facilitate >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> being. >>>>>>>>>> I.e, >>>>>>>>>> proto-humans >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> circumstances >>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> develop >>>>>>>>>> interpersonal, >>>>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>>>> communication, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> ability >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> mime >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> gesture, >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> vocalisations >>>>>>>>>> (all >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> BTW >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>> non-present >>>>>>>>>> entities >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> situations) >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>> produces >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> Eventually, >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> millions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> vocal >>>>>>>>>> apparatus >>>>>>>>>> evolved >>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>> selection >>>>>>>>>> pressure >>>>>>>>>> due >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> non-speech >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> integral >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> niche. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> wordless >>>>>>>>>> speech >>>>>>>>>> gradually >>>>>>>>>> became >>>>>>>>>> modern >>>>>>>>>> speech, >>>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> accompanying >>>>>>>>>> facial >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> hand >>>>>>>>>> movements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> suggest, >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>>>>> fostering >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> (something >>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>>> nearest >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary >>>>>>>>>> cousins >>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> elements >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> rudimentary >>>>>>>>>> speech)? >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> increasing >>>>>>>>>> tool-using, >>>>>>>>>> tool-making, >>>>>>>>>> tool-giving >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018 >>>>>>>>>> 12:58 >>>>>>>>>> pm, >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> Escandon >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear >>>>>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>>> Tomasello >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>>> claims, >>>>>>>>>> grounding >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> surge >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> articulated >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> innate >>>>>>>>>> co-operativism >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> collective >>>>>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Arturo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> Gmail >>>>>>>>>> Mobile >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum, >>>>>>>>>> Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Director, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> Institutional >>>>>>>>>> Research >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fordham >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thebaud >>>>>>>>>> Hall-202 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bronx, >>>>>>>>>> NY >>>>>>>>>> 10458 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phone: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-2243 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fax: >>>>>>>>>> (718) >>>>>>>>>> 817-3817 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> email: >>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> intended >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> addressee >>>>>>>>>> only. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> confidential. >>>>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> received >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> error, >>>>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>> notify >>>>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> destroy >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> copy >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> disseminate >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> permission >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University. >>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>> authorised >>>>>>>>>> signatories >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> competent >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> enter >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> behalf >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> recipients >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>> advised >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> content >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> legally >>>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> author, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> views >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand, >>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. >>>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>>> agreements >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> outsiders >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> subject >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>>>> African >>>>>>>>>> Law >>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>>>> agrees >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> contrary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> >>>> 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 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> >>> 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 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181221/56a9ac87/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Dec 20 18:52:23 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:52:23 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] language and simply communication In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: James, interesting that you use the term "simply communication" to distinguish the natural use of signs in the animal kingdom from the exclusively human use of language. I am interested though in getting to what exactly that difference is, which cannot easily be captured in words like "communication" versus "language". I don't think the distinction can be captured in terms of language structure, either. For example, it may be the case that only and all human language is recursive, where as systems of animal calls are not, but this is a purely *external* differentiation. It is not the *essential* difference, the "difference which? makes a difference," so to speak. Vygotsky gives us the clue when he shows how children acquire words in the process of learning to "command themselves," and how as a result, the entire perceptual field of a human being is structured (as Hegel believed) by signs, mainly words, not just colour and movement. So the difference which makes a difference is the *conscious control* of sign-use, which is gradually acquired in cultural development (both ontological and phylogenetic). So even a single-word sentence like "Mine!" can be language, whereas the 50-odd distinctive calls used by gorillas do *not* constitute language. What do you think? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: ... > Second, animal utterances, however eloquently produced or > approximated like human ones, are simply communication.? > It would be rather absurd for formal linguists to think of > animal utterances as language, given that in a strict > sense no animals are in effect as able to sustain a > conversation as humans do! > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181221/c5a21923/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Dec 20 19:01:26 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:01:26 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Getting to your first topic, now, James ... I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from historical development. The structural view always gives us certain insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage What do you? think? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > > Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few > brief?points, linking with some of your comments: > > First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean > linguistics (semiology); however, I don't think I > "strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's > semiology".? When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on signs, I > often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind.? As I > see it, Saussurean semiology is foundational to all > language studies, such as the evolution of language in > terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing.? Speaking more > broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic > approach to language?have relevance for CHAT.? Above all, > /a priori /hermeneutic methodology can benefit further > development of semiotic methodology within CHAT, helping > us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean > exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. > the tripartite of thought as semiosis, namely > sign-interpretation or sign action.? For example, how sign > action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181221/814ce494/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:31:27 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:31:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Message-ID: Many thanks Andy. I'll get back to you as soon as I finish the job (I've been working relentlessly with MPhil candidates, even no time to catch up piano practising!). James Andy Blunden ? 2018?12?21??? 03:03??? > Getting to your first topic, now, James ... > > I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to > "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as > pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from > historical development. The structural view always gives us certain > insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in > making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side > and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a > one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like > geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage > > What do you think? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > > Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking > with some of your comments: > > > > First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics > (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's > semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on > signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, > Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the > evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. > Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach > to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic > methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within > CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean > exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of > thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For > example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181221/ddaa97f1/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Dec 22 17:37:27 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:37:27 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [cradle-news] Nordic ISCAR Trondheim Norway 18-20 June 2019 In-Reply-To: <49C7E464-7DE6-4969-8835-D845EC304D58@helsinki.fi> References: <0bff46561d874123953cd693a3844e5b@it-ex12.win.ntnu.no> <49C7E464-7DE6-4969-8835-D845EC304D58@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: A meeting on an important topic Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Engestr?m, Yrj? H M Date: Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:01 AM Subject: [cradle-news] Nordic ISCAR Trondheim Norway 18-20 June 2019 To: cradle-news@helsinki.fi Here comes a reminder of the Nordic ISCAR conference in Trondheim 18.-20. June, 2019, titled *Research and practices within and across boundaries* See webpage for the conference at the following link: https://www.ntnu.edu/web/nordic-iscar/home *Important dates* 17 Sept 2018: Submission starts *12 Jan 2019: Submission ends* 15 Sept 2018: Registration starts 28 Feb 2019: Review results announced 26 Apr 2019: Presentation times announced 30 Apr 2019: Registration deadline We really hope that you will attend the conference, and also present your recent research! It is possible to present papers and posters and also to arrange for paper presentations in a symposium (see submission at the webpage). *Could you please forward information about the conference to all your academic friends!* I will also use the opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! And we hope to meet you in lovely Trondheim next summer! Kind regards from May Britt coordinator Nordic and Baltic countries Best wishes from May Britt Postholm Professor in pedagogy and qualitative methodology NTNU, Norway Mob: +47 99696799 http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/may.britt.postholm ISCAR-coordinator for The Nordic and Baltic countries https://www.activitytheorygroup.no/ https://www.ntnu.edu/web/nordic-iscar/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181222/810498a8/attachment.html From savlen.dempsley@hotmail.com Sun Dec 30 12:16:16 2018 From: savlen.dempsley@hotmail.com (Seamus Dempsey) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:16:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] (no subject) Message-ID: Get Outlook for Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181230/94e1645a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_20181210_133516_20CS.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 782145 bytes Desc: IMG_20181210_133516_20CS.jpg Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181230/94e1645a/attachment-0001.jpg From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Dec 30 16:29:29 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:29:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Happy New(s) Year! Message-ID: <1546216168223.95149@ils.uio.no> Dear xmca'ers, a best wishes for the new year, and a few (happy) news. It's been a busy time behind the scenes of MCA, which has kept me/us away from posting much lately. But I hope it's been worth, as we've been working to generate new content and new opportunities for interacting and growing as a community. Here is some of it: 1. CulturalPraxis, a new website supplementing the MCA journal, is finally up and running! You are more than welcome to visit the new site, which we hope will provide expanded opportunities for sharing work, ideas, and resources. The site is designed to allow people submitting content, including book announcements/reviews, course syllabi, news, and more. We have begun curating content together with authors/contributors, and As you will see, there is a link to XMCA in the new site. The idea is that CulturalPraxis will work as an extended feature of the journal, but not as a substitute for XMCA. We are keeping xmca running for as long as there is people signing up and interested in contributing to the list, and we are quite sure it will continue offering opportunities for sharing and conversing that won't overlap with those other features of the site will offer. You can visit the site here: http://culturalpraxis.net/mca/ If you are interested in posting something, go ahead, let us know your experiences, and if you have any suggestions or ideas for improving it, we'd be happy to hear them. 2. MCA's Issue 4 came out extra packed, as we had the chance to fill up pages to end the year count. It includes 3 original articles, a passionate address by Ray McDermott reflecting on the production of school failure, a review of Yrj? Engestr?m's last book, and a symposium on Spinoza and Vygotsky-a topic recurrent in this list. I am attaching the editorial and the introduction to the Spinoza symposium here. If people is interested in discussing any of the works, I'd be happy to arrange for it, sharing materials and perhaps engaging authors. The issue also brings an updated and expanded advisory board. The issue is published online here: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/25/4?nav=tocList More in 2019. Meanwhile, I am very thankful for all 2018 active and passive contributions to this list/community. Sending you my best wishes for the new year, Alfredo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/a78cbe4c/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emotion and Affect Across Varied Contexts and Genres.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 389568 bytes Desc: Emotion and Affect Across Varied Contexts and Genres.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/a78cbe4c/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Jornet & Cole 2018 Introduction to symposium on Vygotsky and Spinoza.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 629409 bytes Desc: Jornet & Cole 2018 Introduction to symposium on Vygotsky and Spinoza.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/a78cbe4c/attachment-0003.pdf From andyb@marxists.org Sun Dec 30 17:13:35 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:13:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New(s) Year! In-Reply-To: <1546216168223.95149@ils.uio.no> References: <1546216168223.95149@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, I couldn't see where to submit a link to https://vimeo.com/groups/chat ? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 31/12/2018 11:29 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Dear xmca'ers, > > > a best wishes for the new year, and?a few (happy) news. > > > It's been a busy time behind the scenes of MCA, which has > kept me/us away from posting much lately. But I hope it's > been worth, as we've been working to generate?new content > and new?opportunities for interacting and growing?as > a?community.?Here is?some of it: > > *1. **CulturalPraxis, a new website supplementing the?MCA > journal, is finally up and running! *You are more than > welcome to visit the new site, which we hope will?provide > expanded opportunities for sharing work, ideas, and > resources. The site is designed to allow people submitting > content, including book announcements/reviews, course > syllabi, news, and more. We have begun?curating?content > together with authors/contributors, and > > > As you will see, there is a link to XMCA in the?new?site. > The idea is that CulturalPraxis will work as an extended > feature of the journal, but /not/ as a substitute > for?XMCA. We are?keeping xmca running for as long as there > is people signing up and interested in contributing to the > list, and we are quite sure it will continue offering > opportunities for sharing and conversing that won't > overlap with those other features of the site will offer. > > > You can visit the site here: http://culturalpraxis.net/mca/ > > If?you are interested in posting something, go ahead,?let > us know your experiences,?and if you have any suggestions > or ideas for improving it,?we'd be happy to hear them. > > *2. MCA's?Issue 4* came out extra packed,?as we had the > chance to fill up?pages to end the year count.?It includes > 3 original articles, a passionate?address by Ray?McDermott > reflecting?on the production of school failure, a review > of Yrj? Engestr?m's last book,?and?a symposium on Spinoza > and Vygotsky?a topic recurrent in this list. I am > attaching the editorial and?the introduction to the > Spinoza symposium here. If people is interested in > discussing any of the works, I'd be happy to arrange for > it, sharing materials and?perhaps?engaging authors. > > The issue also brings an updated and expanded advisory > board. The issueis published online here: > https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/25/4?nav=tocList > > More in 2019. Meanwhile, I am very?thankful for all 2018 > active and passive contributions to > this?list/community.?Sending you?my best wishes for the > new year, > > Alfredo > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/838543c0/attachment.html From kplakits@gmail.com Mon Dec 31 00:02:56 2018 From: kplakits@gmail.com (Katerina Plakitsi) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 10:02:56 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New(s) Year! In-Reply-To: <1546216168223.95149@ils.uio.no> References: <1546216168223.95149@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: ???? ???, 31 ??? 2018 ???? 02:32 ? ??????? Alfredo Jornet Gil < a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> ??????: > Dear xmca'ers, > > > a best wishes for the new year, and a few (happy) news. > > > It's been a busy time behind the scenes of MCA, which has kept me/us away > from posting much lately. But I hope it's been worth, as we've been working > to generate new content and new opportunities for interacting and > growing as a community. Here is some of it: > > > > *1. **CulturalPraxis, a new website supplementing the MCA journal, is > finally up and running! *You are more than welcome to visit the new site, > which we hope will provide expanded opportunities for sharing work, ideas, > and resources. The site is designed to allow people submitting content, > including book announcements/reviews, course syllabi, news, and more. We > have begun curating content together with authors/contributors, and > > > As you will see, there is a link to XMCA in the new site. The idea is that > CulturalPraxis will work as an extended feature of the journal, but *not* > as a substitute for XMCA. We are keeping xmca running for as long as there > is people signing up and interested in contributing to the list, and we are > quite sure it will continue offering opportunities for sharing and > conversing that won't overlap with those other features of the site will > offer. > > > You can visit the site here: http://culturalpraxis.net/mca/ > > If you are interested in posting something, go ahead, let us know your > experiences, and if you have any suggestions or ideas for improving it, we'd > be happy to hear them. > > *2. MCA's Issue 4* came out extra packed, as we had the chance to fill > up pages to end the year count. It includes 3 original articles, a > passionate address by Ray McDermott reflecting on the production of school > failure, a review of Yrj? Engestr?m's last book, and a symposium on Spinoza > and Vygotsky?a topic recurrent in this list. I am attaching the editorial > and the introduction to the Spinoza symposium here. If people is interested > in discussing any of the works, I'd be happy to arrange for it, sharing > materials and perhaps engaging authors. > > The issue also brings an updated and expanded advisory board. The issue > is published online here: > https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/25/4?nav=tocList > > More in 2019. Meanwhile, I am very thankful for all 2018 active and > passive contributions to this list/community. Sending you my best wishes > for the new year, > > Alfredo > > > > -- Katerina Plakitsi *ISCAR President* *Professor of Science Education* *Head of the Dept. of E**arly Childhood Education* *School of Education * *University of Ioannina, Greece* *tel. +302651005771* *fax. +302651005842* *mobile.phone +306972898463* *Skype name: katerina.plakitsi3* https://www.iscar.org/ http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits www.epoque-project.eu http://bdfprojects.wixsite.com/mindset http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isZAbefnRmo&t=7s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/20d9a8f8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_0285.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 158823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/20d9a8f8/attachment.jpg From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 31 11:50:50 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:50:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have the will to meaning, so to speak. James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar * *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden wrote: > Getting to your first topic, now, James ... > > I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to > "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as > pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from > historical development. The structural view always gives us certain > insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in > making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side > and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a > one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like > geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage > > What do you think? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > > Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking > with some of your comments: > > > > First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics > (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's > semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on > signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, > Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the > evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. > Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach > to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic > methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within > CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean > exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of > thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For > example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/5c42e3d3/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 31 12:02:34 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and simply communication In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy, formal linguists would use the so-called "design features" of language to refer to properties marking off human beings from other creatures on earth. For example, when someone says something to you, you're free to give an answer in the way you like. Should you choose not to do so, that is in itself an answer. This is called the "stimulus-free" property in linguistics, but it doesn't rule out taking into consideration the social relationship you may have with the interlocutor. However, non-human creature communication is confined to signalling, inherently different from human language and still perhaps incomprehensible (or even astonishing) in many ways. For example, the mother turkey's protective instinct is only triggered by their baby turkey's "cheep-cheep" sound. When a mother turkey sees a polecat (their natural predator), she immediately goes into attack mode, even at the sight of a stuffed polecat. What's more, if you make the stuffed polecat produce the same "cheep-cheep" sound, the mother turkey turns out to be a protector of that polecat! James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:54, Andy Blunden wrote: > James, interesting that you use the term "simply communication" to > distinguish the natural use of signs in the animal kingdom from the > exclusively human use of language. I am interested though in getting to > what exactly that difference is, which cannot easily be captured in words > like "communication" versus "language". > > I don't think the distinction can be captured in terms of language > structure, either. For example, it may be the case that only and all human > language is recursive, where as systems of animal calls are not, but this > is a purely *external* differentiation. It is not the *essential* > difference, the "difference which makes a difference," so to speak. > > Vygotsky gives us the clue when he shows how children acquire words in the > process of learning to "command themselves," and how as a result, the > entire perceptual field of a human being is structured (as Hegel believed) > by signs, mainly words, not just colour and movement. So the difference > which makes a difference is the *conscious control* of sign-use, which is > gradually acquired in cultural development (both ontological and > phylogenetic). > > So even a single-word sentence like "Mine!" can be language, whereas the > 50-odd distinctive calls used by gorillas do *not* constitute language. > > What do you think? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > ... > > Second, animal utterances, however eloquently produced or approximated > like human ones, are simply communication. It would be rather absurd for > formal linguists to think of animal utterances as language, given that in a > strict sense no animals are in effect as able to sustain a conversation as > humans do! > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/5e77da94/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Dec 31 12:28:57 2018 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:28:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Analytical and Continental In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <49a1d020-0dae-7206-6ac1-ae5187d3bc7a@marxists.org> Message-ID: That's amazing, Andy. Whenever I come across your name, I feel something to do with philosophy keeps cropping up in my mind! I guess you might be in favour of the German social theorist Jurgen Habermas - am I right? At the end of the 20th century, European thought seemed to go back to the Enlightenment, especially in Germany. Habermas refuted the post-structural notion of the indeterminacy of meaning, arguing for the role of Enlightenment ideas in intellectual life, such as public debate, and at the same time defending the Marxist intellectual tradition. This seems rather paradoxical because Continental Philosophy initially drew upon the work of German thinkers like Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger. Habermas insisted that German intellectuals had wrongly moved away from the Enlightenment and Heidegger was the reason. Anyway, I can see why you say thinkers "most sympathetic to CHAT concerns are the Pragmatists". I felt the CHAT paradigm should maintain the dialogue with the Enlightenment. Happy New Year! James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar * *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:40, Andy Blunden wrote: > James, according to Wikipedia's entry, Hegel is a part of "continental > philosophy," but this is an anachronism really, because the tribal division > is a 20th century phenomenon and affects mainly university departments in > the Anglosphere. Continental philosophers like to cite Hegel and Marx, but > I don't think we can count these writers as part of Continental Philosophy. > In any case, people interested in CHAT are going to be outside of that > argument. > > In the tradition that I identify with Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky we value natural > science in a way which is uncharacteristic of Continental Philosophy, but > also value meta-philosophical considerations over formal-logical argument > in a way which is uncharacteristic of Analytical Philosophy. > > As I think I said in the previous message the people we find in philosophy > departments most sympathetic to CHAT concerns are the Pragmatists. Dewey > was trained as a Hegelian and James got his scientific education in 19th > century Germany, still affected by German Idealism. Peirce seems to try to > unite the virtues of both currents in his own way, too. Hegelian > Philosophers like Robert Pippin and Charles Taylor recognise their own > affinity with the Pragmatist school, and recent Pragmatist Philosophers > like Richard Rorty and Robert Putnam accept the disciplines of Analytical > Philosophy while making an effort to appropriate Hegel. > > Myself, I have never attended a university course in Philosophy, any more > than I have attended any course in Psychology, so I cannot be part of > either current. Personally, I remain of the view that it is Hegel and Marx > who provide the meta-concepts needed to develop Vygotsky's legacy in > Psychology and Social Theory, and I don't see a lot of prospects in either > the Analytical or Continental Philosophical traditions in themselves. > > What do you think? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > > Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking > with some of your comments: > > > ... > > > Third, on hearing that you are "definitely not an Analytical philosopher, > but not really a Continental philosopher either", it's not surprising that > in my last email the paragraph beginning "More specifically..." doesn't > make much sense to you. That paragraph reflects a take on consciousness > and language informed by phenomenology and post-structuralism. > Phenomenology gave way to post-structuralism in the 1960s, prior to which > Heidegger and Sartre had taken phenomenology to a direction different to > Husserl. However, Heidegger's theory as mainly presented in "Being and > Time", albeit provocative and much disputed, has long been a landmark of > modern thought in philosophy and beyond. Funnily enough, when reading your > comments, my first impulse was recollection of you remarking that > phenomenology was not for you and that Heidegger was a flawed personality! > > > > After all, perhaps we all have a Dasein unique to ourselves. Our different > disciplinary interests lead to different ontological positions that > influence our views on how we should know what we know! Sometimes > synergistic meaning-making without emotion may be fruitful and illuminating. > > > > James > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 01:50, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > (1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy > This is the tribal division which divides philosophy departments across > the Anglosphere into rival, mutually incomprehensible tribes. My lights - > Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky - are certainly not part of Analytical Philosophy > but are not really Continentals either. The Pragmatists - from Dewey, James > and Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are not quite Analytical Philosophers, > but these are the only Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am > definitely not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental > philosopher either. All the people I like are "in between." > > (2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?" > This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, as a > Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a Subjective Idealist. > > (3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the > experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful?" > Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean otherwise, so something > of this kind must be the case. > > (4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph beginning "More > specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's view of the mutually interconnected > development of verbal intellect and intelligent speech (whether verbal or > signed). I don't want to add anything to what Vygotsky said in "Thinking > and Speech." > > (5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? > I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is a powerful one and > can be utilised consistently with Vygotsky's views on the solution of > relevant problems. But the thing is that consciousness is not something > which in itself has any impact on the external world, only mediately > through the physiology of the thinking body and material objects wielded by > the body. You strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's > Semiology when you say: "consciousness is the signifying and the > signified." How can consciousness signify if it is not empirically given? > Unless you are just referencing an "internal world" here? > > (6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language"? > As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like structuralism or functionalism > or behaviourism), an extremely powerful approach, for the objective > analysis of culture in the sense of a mass of interconnected objects and > behaviours. The context in which I was speaking was the phylogenetic > origins of language. Treating language as a natural process subject to > objective analysis just like geological formations or the structure of > ecosystems, or whatever, ruled out Semiotics as providing the explanation > for why language is essentially not just a system of signs,- that a chimp > screeching in fright and causing another chimp to run away, is essentially > different from a chimp calling out: "There's a wolf coming!" and another > chimp responding by calling out "Stop playing games, Charlie! You scared > the life out of me." Even old Spinoza took the essential issue, not to have > emotions, but to be able to control one's emotions and one's response to > emotions. > > Whatever your ontological position, there remains a real puzzle: how did > homo sapiens sapiens evolve? What is it that was the essential driver in > forming our unquestionably unique species. Many answer that it is language, > and it is not unreasonable to re-pose the original question: how did > language-using evolve? If the analytical tools you bring to bear can't make > a fundamental distinction between language-using and any other semiotic > process, then that tool is of no use for the task at hand. > > Andy > > > On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 22:15, James Ma wrote: > >> Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said: "Language is an >> essential part of a specific form of life, namely human life, in which >> consciousness mediates between stimulus and response, and that >> consciousness cannot in itself be a sign". I found this interesting - would >> it encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a creation of minds or >> mental states? Are you saying that consciousness bestows meaning to the >> objects of the world or that the experience of a human subject makes these >> objects meaningful? >> >> More specifically, linking consciousness with language, do you consider >> both the intentionality of consciousness and the linguistic structures as >> described in analytical philosophy (I guess you're more of an analytical >> philosopher)? I wondered, in your view, what would serve as a foundation >> for knowledge, if human subjects had no recourse to the narratives of >> "transcendent being" or "higher being". I'm interested in Wittgenstein and >> Husserl, both of whom examined language and consciousness. Wittgenstein saw >> limits in what philosophy could do in terms of explaining and >> understanding; Husserl stressed limits in articulating or communicating >> consciousness. Can you comment on this and perhaps how it might be >> implicated in your position? >> >> Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? As I >> see it, consciousness is the signifying and the signified, both of which >> evolve as consciousness evolves. In Peirce's terms, consciousness is a >> semiosis. >> >> In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not >> language". Reading Peirce, I've found it intriguing that a great deal of >> his pragmaticism (as distinguished from William James's pragmatism) can be >> packed into his semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might be studied >> against the backdrop of his pragmaticism (which provides a conceptual basis >> for his tripartite of the sign). As I see it, Peircean pragmatism is also a >> theory of meaning, indicative of the role of language in making clear what >> we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is meant by "going around the tree" in >> William James's "squirrel on the tree"). >> >> This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far on Xmca-I. I'm busy >> again from tomorrow but will be joyfully watching how it develops in the >> background! >> >> James >> >> >> >> >> *____________________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181231/986da7ae/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Dec 31 16:45:11 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 11:45:11 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Message-ID: Well James, the entire line from Saussure to Levi-Strauss to Derrida and Foucault always seemed alien to me; based on a dualism at the beginning and railing against dualism at the end. But the achievements of structuralism and post-structuralism are there for all to see. A proof, I suppose, of the fact that every lens gives you a unique insight - there is no one right "unit of analysis." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/01/2019 6:50 am, James Ma wrote: > Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: > > I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is > intuitive and /a posteriori/ rather than of something we > get hung up on deliberately or voluntarily. This state of > mind is also multifaceted, depending on the context in > which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be?a > prototype of default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm > not sure about that. > > Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, > without which post-Saussurean thought, including > post-structuralism, wouldn't have existed. Seemingly, none > of these theorists could have worked out their ideas > without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take > for example the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think > would suffice (never mind those Francophone geniuses you > might have referred to!). Jakobson extended and modified > Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the > object of linguistic studies (instead of standardised > rules of a given language, i.e. /langue/ in Saussure's > terms). He replaced langue with "code" to denote the > goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the > codes was thus associated with its own langue as a larger > system. > > It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply > dualistic. There's more to it, e.g. the system of > signification bridging between a concept (signified) and a > sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of > signification is not concerned with language but > linguistics within which language lends itself > to?scrutiny?and related concepts?become valid. From > Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a > normalised collective norm; it contains personal meanings > not necessarily compatible with that norm. Saussure would > say this norm is the /parole/ that involves an > individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's > code quite liberating - it helps?explain the workings of > Chinese dialects (different to dialects within the British > English), e.g. the grammatical structure of Shanghainese, > which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the > official language or predominant dialect). > > By the way, I don't think we can study a language > objectively because we are already users of that language > when studying it, i.e. we must remain insiders of that > language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have > the will to meaning, so to speak. > > James > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Getting to your first topic, now, James ... > > I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday > interactions, to "default" to the Saussurian way of > seeing things, that is to say, signs as pointing to > objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted > from historical development. The structural view > always gives us certain insights which can be > invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in > making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with > himself on one side and condemned half a century of > his followers in Structuralism to a one-sided view of > the world ... which made the poststructuralists look > like geniuses of course, when they stepped outside > this cage > > What do you? think? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >> >> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few >> brief?points, linking with some of your comments: >> >> First, I have a default sense of signs based on >> Saussurean linguistics (semiology); however, I don't >> think I "strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to >> Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and >> Vygotsky on signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery >> present in my mind.? As I see it, Saussurean >> semiology is foundational to all language studies, >> such as the evolution of language in terms of e.g. >> semantic drift and narrowing.? Speaking more broadly, >> in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach >> to language?have relevance for CHAT.? Above all, /a >> priori /hermeneutic methodology can benefit further >> development of semiotic methodology within CHAT, >> helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the >> key Peircean exponent, referred to as "the most >> essential point", i.e. the tripartite of thought as >> semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action.? >> For example, how sign action might be implicated in >> culture and consciousness. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190101/bad1050c/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Dec 31 17:11:35 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 12:11:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: language and simply communication In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> Message-ID: Your story of the turkey and the pole cat reminds me of Trevor Noah's autobiography. Born from an African mother and a white father he was "born a crime" but he turned out to have a gift for language and so long as he spoke to people in their own accent and idiom he was accepted as "one of us" in any of the communities in apartheid South Africa, Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/01/2019 7:02 am, James Ma wrote: > Andy, formal linguists would use the so-called "design > features" of language to refer to properties marking off > human beings from other creatures on earth. For example, > when someone says something to you, you're free to give an > answer in the way you like. Should you choose not to do > so, that is in itself an answer. This is called the > "stimulus-free" property in linguistics, but it doesn't > rule out taking into consideration the social relationship > you may have with the interlocutor. However, non-human > creature communication is confined to signalling, > inherently different from human language and still perhaps > incomprehensible (or even astonishing)?in many ways. For > example, the mother turkey's protective instinct is only > triggered by their baby turkey's "cheep-cheep" sound. When > a mother turkey sees a polecat (their natural predator), > she immediately goes into attack mode, even at the sight > of a stuffed polecat. What's more, if you make the stuffed > polecat produce the same "cheep-cheep" sound, the mother > turkey turns out to be a protector of that polecat! > > James > > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa / > > * > * > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:54, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > James, interesting that you use the term "simply > communication" to distinguish the natural use of signs > in the animal kingdom from the exclusively human use > of language. I am interested though in getting to what > exactly that difference is, which cannot easily be > captured in words like "communication" versus "language". > > I don't think the distinction can be captured in terms > of language structure, either. For example, it may be > the case that only and all human language is > recursive, where as systems of animal calls are not, > but this is a purely *external* differentiation. It is > not the *essential* difference, the "difference which? > makes a difference," so to speak. > > Vygotsky gives us the clue when he shows how children > acquire words in the process of learning to "command > themselves," and how as a result, the entire > perceptual field of a human being is structured (as > Hegel believed) by signs, mainly words, not just > colour and movement. So the difference which makes a > difference is the *conscious control* of sign-use, > which is gradually acquired in cultural development > (both ontological and phylogenetic). > > So even a single-word sentence like "Mine!" can be > language, whereas the 50-odd distinctive calls used by > gorillas do *not* constitute language. > > What do you think? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: > ... >> Second, animal utterances, however eloquently >> produced or approximated like human ones, are simply >> communication.? It would be rather absurd for formal >> linguists to think of animal utterances as language, >> given that in a strict sense no animals are in effect >> as able to sustain a conversation as humans do! >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190101/b45e0224/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Dec 31 17:20:58 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 12:20:58 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analytical and Continental In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <49a1d020-0dae-7206-6ac1-ae5187d3bc7a@marxists.org> Message-ID: <87374d1b-1134-6074-3b68-8c4f0f24ed61@marxists.org> By the time I got to read Habermas he was already the previous generation of Critical Theorists and I found myself most interested in Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib. Critical Theory provided an environment for the Hegel-Marx dialogue I was interested in, but I soon found that Critical Theory gave no space for Vygotsky and CHAT - they were trapped with Freud and Piaget. Here is what I wrote in 2006 in first parting company with Critical Theory: https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/critical%20theory%20and%20psychology.pdf Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/01/2019 7:28 am, James Ma wrote: > That's amazing, Andy. Whenever I come across your name, I > feel something to do with philosophy keeps cropping up in > my mind! > > I guess you might be in favour of the German social > theorist Jurgen Habermas - am I right? > > At the end of the 20th century, European thought seemed to > go back to the Enlightenment, especially in Germany. > Habermas refuted the post-structural notion of the > indeterminacy of meaning, arguing for the role of > Enlightenment ideas in intellectual life, such as public > debate, and at the same time defending the Marxist > intellectual tradition. This seems rather paradoxical > because Continental Philosophy initially drew upon the > work of German thinkers like Nietzsche, Husserl and > Heidegger. Habermas insisted that German intellectuals had > wrongly moved away from the Enlightenment and Heidegger > was the reason. > > Anyway, I can see why you say thinkers "most sympathetic > to CHAT concerns are the Pragmatists". I?felt the CHAT > paradigm should maintain the dialogue with the Enlightenment. > > Happy New Year! > > James > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:40, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > James, according to Wikipedia's entry, Hegel is a part > of "continental philosophy," but this is an > anachronism really, because the tribal division is a > 20th century phenomenon and affects mainly university > departments in the Anglosphere. Continental > philosophers like to cite Hegel and Marx, but I don't > think we can count these writers as part of > Continental Philosophy. In any case, people interested > in CHAT are going to be outside of that argument. > > In the tradition that I identify with > Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky we value natural science in a way > which is uncharacteristic of Continental Philosophy, > but also value meta-philosophical considerations over > formal-logical argument in a way which is > uncharacteristic of Analytical Philosophy. > > As I think I said in the previous message the people > we find in philosophy departments most sympathetic to > CHAT concerns are the Pragmatists. Dewey was trained > as a Hegelian and James got his scientific education > in 19th century Germany, still affected by German > Idealism. Peirce seems to try to unite the virtues of > both currents in his own way, too. Hegelian > Philosophers like Robert Pippin and Charles Taylor > recognise their own affinity with the Pragmatist > school, and recent Pragmatist Philosophers like > Richard Rorty and Robert Putnam accept the disciplines > of Analytical Philosophy while making an effort to > appropriate Hegel. > > Myself, I have never attended a university course in > Philosophy, any more than I have attended any course > in Psychology, so I cannot be part of either current. > Personally, I remain of the view that it is Hegel and > Marx who provide the meta-concepts needed to develop > Vygotsky's legacy in Psychology and Social Theory, and > I don't see a lot of prospects in either the > Analytical or Continental Philosophical traditions in > themselves. > > What do you think? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >> >> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few >> brief?points, linking with some of your comments: >> >> ... > >> Third, on hearing that you are "definitely not an >> Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental >> philosopher either", it's not surprising that in my >> last email the paragraph beginning "More >> specifically..." doesn't make much sense to you.? >> That paragraph reflects a?take on consciousness and >> language informed by phenomenology and >> post-structuralism.? Phenomenology gave way to >> post-structuralism in the 1960s, prior to which >> Heidegger and Sartre had taken phenomenology to a >> direction different to Husserl.? However, Heidegger's >> theory as mainly presented in "Being and Time", >> albeit provocative and much disputed, has?long been a >> landmark of modern thought in philosophy and beyond.? >> Funnily enough, when reading your comments, my first >> impulse was recollection of you remarking that >> phenomenology was not for you and that Heidegger was >> a flawed personality! >> >> After all, perhaps we all have a Dasein unique to >> ourselves. Our different disciplinary interests lead >> to different ontological positions that influence our >> views on how we should know what we know!? Sometimes >> synergistic meaning-making without emotion?may be >> fruitful and illuminating. >> >> James >> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 01:50, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> (1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy >> This is the tribal division which divides philosophy >> departments across the Anglosphere into rival, >> mutually incomprehensible tribes. My lights - Hegel, >> Marx and Vygotsky - are certainly not part of >> Analytical Philosophy but are not really Continentals >> either. The Pragmatists - from Dewey, James and >> Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are not quite >> Analytical Philosophers, but these are the only >> Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am >> definitely not an Analytical philosopher, but not >> really a Continental philosopher either. All the >> people I like are "in between." >> >> (2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?" >> This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, >> as a Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a >> Subjective Idealist. >> >> (3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of >> the world or that the experience of a human subject >> makes these objects meaningful?" >> Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean >> otherwise, so something of this kind must be the case. >> >> (4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph >> beginning "More specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's >> view of the mutually interconnected development of >> verbal intellect and intelligent speech (whether >> verbal or signed). I don't want to add anything to >> what Vygotsky said in "Thinking and Speech." >> >> (5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"? >> I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is >> a powerful one and can be utilised consistently with >> Vygotsky's views on the solution of relevant >> problems. But the thing is that consciousness is not >> something which in itself has any impact on the >> external world, only mediately through the physiology >> of the thinking body and material objects wielded by >> the body. You strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics >> to Saussure's Semiology when you say: "consciousness >> is the signifying and the signified." How can >> consciousness signify if it is not empirically given? >> Unless you are just referencing an "internal world" here? >> >> (6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not >> language"? >> As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like >> structuralism or functionalism or behaviourism), an >> extremely powerful approach, for the objective >> analysis of culture in the sense of a mass of >> interconnected objects and behaviours. The context in >> which I was speaking was the phylogenetic origins of >> language. Treating language as a natural process >> subject to objective analysis just like geological >> formations or the structure of ecosystems, or >> whatever, ruled out Semiotics as providing the >> explanation for why language is essentially not just >> a system of signs,- that a chimp screeching in fright >> and causing another chimp to run away, is essentially >> different from a chimp calling out: "There's a wolf >> coming!" and another chimp responding by calling out >> "Stop playing games, Charlie! You scared the life out >> of me." Even old Spinoza took the essential issue, >> not to have emotions, but to be able to control one's >> emotions and one's response to emotions. >> >> Whatever your ontological position, there remains a >> real puzzle: how did homo sapiens sapiens evolve? >> What is it that was the essential driver in forming >> our unquestionably unique species. Many answer that >> it is language, and it is not unreasonable to re-pose >> the original question: how did language-using evolve? >> If the analytical tools you bring to bear can't make >> a fundamental distinction between language-using and >> any other semiotic process, then that tool is of no >> use for the task at hand. >> >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 22:15, James Ma >> > >> wrote: >> >> Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You >> said: "Language is an essential part of a >> specific form of life, namely human life, in >> which consciousness mediates between stimulus and >> response, and that consciousness cannot in itself >> be a sign".?I found this interesting - would it >> encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a >> creation of minds or mental states? Are you >> saying that consciousness bestows meaning to the >> objects of the world or that the experience of a >> human subject makes these objects meaningful? >> >> More specifically, linking consciousness with >> language, do you consider both the intentionality >> of consciousness and the linguistic structures as >> described in analytical philosophy (I guess >> you're more of an analytical philosopher)? I >> wondered, in your view,?what would?serve as?a >> foundation for knowledge, if human subjects had >> no recourse to the narratives of "transcendent >> being" or "higher being". I'm interested in >> Wittgenstein and Husserl, both of whom examined >> language and consciousness. Wittgenstein saw >> limits in what philosophy could do in terms of >> explaining and understanding; Husserl stressed >> limits in articulating or communicating >> consciousness. Can you comment on this and >> perhaps how it might be implicated in your position? >> >> Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in >> itself be a sign"? As I see it, consciousness is >> the signifying and the signified, both of which >> evolve as consciousness evolves. In Peirce's >> terms, consciousness is a semiosis. >> >> In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the >> Peircean sense is "not language". Reading Peirce, >> I've found it intriguing that a great deal of his >> pragmaticism (as distinguished from William >> James's pragmatism) can be packed into his >> semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might >> be?studied against the backdrop of his >> pragmaticism (which provides a conceptual basis >> for his tripartite of the sign). As I see it, >> Peircean pragmatism is?also a theory of meaning, >> indicative of the role of language in making >> clear what we mean by what we say (e.g. what it >> is meant by "going around the tree" in William >> James's "squirrel on the tree"). >> >> This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so >> far on Xmca-I. I'm busy again from tomorrow but >> will be?joyfully watching how it develops in the >> background! >> >> James >> >> >> */____________________________________________________________/* >> >> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa / >> >> / >> / >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190101/f71b7648/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Dec 31 21:29:42 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 14:29:42 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com> <848DAB61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gmail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689-fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Message-ID: Suppose I say something like this: "I don't think we can study the human body objectively because we are already users of bodies when studying them, i.e. we must remain insiders of our bodies in order to study them, plus the fact that we have the will to embodiment, so to speak." I might be comfortable with a statement like this if I read through it quickly and I don't think about it for too long, provided I am in good health and don't require a doctor (If I fall seriously ill and I go to a doctor, and receive a statement like this, I will probably want a second opinion). But alas, I am arrested by the first three words. What does it mean to say "I don't think"? Can you write "I don't think" without thinking? Is this an instance of aphophasis, like "not to mention"? Because I do study language--and study it objectively--I know that "i don't think" is an interpersonal metaphor: it's a modal, a statement of probability, like the expression "cannot" (which is also a contradiction, when you think about it, because there isn't any such thing as negative probability). This is easy to prove. You just add a tag: a) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, do I?" b) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, can we?" It should be obvious that a) is absurd, and b) is what is meant. But isn't that an objective test? Or do you just mean that the phenomena of language don't appear under a microscope? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: > Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: > > I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a > posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or > voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the > context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of > default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. > > Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which > post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have > existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their > ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example > the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind > those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended > and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object > of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, > i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to > denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes > was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. > > It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. There's > more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a concept > (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of > signification is not concerned with language but linguistics within which > language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become valid. From > Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised collective > norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible with that > norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that involves an > individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite > liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects (different > to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical structure of > Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the > official language or predominant dialect). > > By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we > are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain > insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have > the will to meaning, so to speak. > > James > > *_______________________________________________________* > > *James Ma Independent Scholar * > *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Getting to your first topic, now, James ... >> >> I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to >> "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as >> pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from >> historical development. The structural view always gives us certain >> insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in >> making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side >> and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a >> one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like >> geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage >> >> What do you think? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >> >> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, >> linking with some of your comments: >> >> >> >> First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics >> (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's >> semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on >> signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, >> Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the >> evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. >> Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach >> to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic >> methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within >> CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean >> exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of >> thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For >> example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190101/9602bd4a/attachment.html From rein.raud@tlu.ee Mon Dec 31 21:42:43 2018 From: rein.raud@tlu.ee (Rein Raud) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2019 07:42:43 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <7F61E750-78DD-4E85-9446-D582583AB223@gmail.com > <848DA B61-94F6-4CD8-8878-03A60A5F0A52@gmail.com> <51F38D55-0287-4E9B-A79C-94768DDE1700@gm ail.com> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <1dee6a1f-8e3e-50e4-c689 -fa1ae717c919@marxists.org> Message-ID: <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Happy New Year, David, Why do you say that (a) is absurd? Let us assume that this is what a scholar tells herself after a long internal thought-chain, weighing the pros and cons of a certain argument about how to study the human body, finally arriving at an unexpected conclusion, perhaps persuaded by someone else?s work. And at this point she says to herself ?Hey, come on, I don't really think we can study the human body objectively, do I?? ?Thinking something? (endorsing a particular claim) and ?thinking? (entertaining certain mental processes) are not the same thing, even though conflated in the English word ?think?. But in the first case you can substitute it with some synonyms (?reckon?, for example), while in others you cannot. You ask ?can you write "I don't think" without thinking?? but you probably wouldn?t ask ?can you write "I don't reckon" without reckoning?? Best wishes for 2019 to the whole community, Rein ********************************************** Rein Raud Professor of Asian and Cultural Studies, Tallinn University Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn 10120 Estonia www.reinraud.com ?Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral?Theory of Culture?(Polity 2016) ?Practices of Selfhood? (with Zygmunt?Bauman, Polity 2015) > On 1 Jan 2019, at 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > Suppose I say something like this: > > "I don't think we can study the human body objectively because we are already users of bodies when studying them, i.e. we must remain insiders of our bodies in order to study them, plus the fact that we have the will to embodiment, so to speak." > > I might be comfortable with a statement like this if I read through it quickly and I don't think about it for too long, provided I am in good health and don't require a doctor (If I fall seriously ill and I go to a doctor, and receive a statement like this, I will probably want a second opinion). > > But alas, I am arrested by the first three words. What does it mean to say "I don't think"? Can you write "I don't think" without thinking? Is this an instance of aphophasis, like "not to mention"? > > Because I do study language--and study it objectively--I know that "i don't think" is an interpersonal metaphor: it's a modal, a statement of probability, like the expression "cannot" (which is also a contradiction, when you think about it, because there isn't any such thing as negative probability). > > This is easy to prove. You just add a tag: > > a) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, do I?" > b) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, can we?" > > It should be obvious that a) is absurd, and b) is what is meant. But isn't that an objective test? Or do you just mean that the phenomena of language don't appear under a microscope? > > > > > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in Language and Literature, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma > wrote: > Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: > > I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and a posteriori rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. > > Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, i.e. langue in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. > > It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the parole that involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). > > By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have the will to meaning, so to speak. > > James > _______________________________________________________ > James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden > wrote: > Getting to your first topic, now, James ... > > I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from historical development. The structural view always gives us certain insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage > > What do you think? > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, linking with some of your comments: >> >> >> First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, a priori hermeneutic methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190101/b996396f/attachment.html