[Xmca-l] Re: language and music

Sun Dec 2 18:44:54 PST 2018

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 <andyb@marxists.org> 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 <andyb@marxists.org> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right on, James!
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> 于 2018年11月29日周四 18:58写道：
>>>
>>>> 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 <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> 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
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ducktail+haircuts+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
>>>>> 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 <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> 于 2018年11月27日周二 19:30写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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 <jamesma320@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>> <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 <mcole@ucsd.edu> 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 <jamesma320@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 酣歌醉舞 - singing and dancing rapturously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 村歌社舞 - dancing village and singing club
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 燕歌赵舞 - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and
>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 舞榭歌楼 - a church or building set up for singing and dancing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *James Ma  Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>>> <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 <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>;
>>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *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 <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=itd0qPWlE7uAuyEX0ii8ohEoZegfdMAOOLf-YoaEqqs&s=-uwTjZDhHtJM2EFdBS-rXLTptADQdSGAcibaav-mhJw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=A3k5oeQ13zGCPUbWibdOb2KNZT4q__fLyCwugyULUDw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cambridge.org_core_books_cambridge-2Dhandbook-2Dof-2Dchild-2Dlanguage_90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=vxJZooXRDYwTRrM4dzWBbLfUhF9HhmUvU3ouq6sbwPI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/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
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Mandarin Ducks.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 