[Xmca-l] Re: language and music

[Greg Thompson]

(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 <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
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 <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
>


-- 
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