Luiz,
Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition offers an
interesting alternative to innatism in the acquisition of language, which
also fits indirectly your claims. Bruner in Child's talk do the same. And
before, of course, Vygotsky. As for the general topic, my question will be
how do we move beyond what we know so far, what research strategies we
should pursue, what are the open questions we still have to answer when
doing research on literacy and cognition, and how do we translate those
questions in an empirical program of research.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Carlos Baptista" <lucabaptista@sapo.pt>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
> These are very good points. Here I follow closely the position of David R.
> Olson in his book "The World on Paper": we have writing when we have
scripts
> with syntax. This includes, for instance, numerical and musical notations.
> In this sense, if Stonehenge and the Lascaux calendars were tokens of a
> syntactical system, they indeed could be called "logotechniques". But I
> really don't know enough about them. The key moment here, and again I take
> it from Olson, is when human beings start _reading texts_, instead of
> "simply" seeing/describing images.
>
> As regards language, however, I stick to the good old fashioned "innate
> endowment" hypothesis.
>
>
> Luiz Carlos Baptista
> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> lucabaptista@hotmail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Cole" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: segunda-feira, 29 de Setembro de 2003 22:11
> Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
>
>
> > Luiz-- Why wouldn't Stonehenge or lunar calandars from Lascaux not count
> > as logtechniques? And why not language itself?
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT