Hi David,
I think we mostly agree. I don't see a dichotomy between oral and written
language, but a distinction - in fact, a series of distinctions, including
the different uses of writing, speech, etc. and their combinations (for
instance, the use of written texts as mnemonic devices in a predominantly
"oral culture" such as the European Middle Ages). As regards the "innatism"
x "environmentalist" debate, I don't know of any "innatist" who defends the
idea of a "clean jump from genetics to current cognition" - the exception
being the sociobiological fundamentalists, but I don't take them seriously.
Rgrds,
Luiz Carlos Baptista
lucabaptista@sapo.pt
lucabaptista@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Preiss" <david.preiss@yale.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: quarta-feira, 1 de Outubro de 2003 3:41
Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> I think that what you say is correct. Still, I think that what those
authors
> allows us to see is that an innate view of language is incomplete and that
> you can't make a clean jump from genetics (or evolved capacities) to
current
> cognition without taking in consideration socio-interactive processes. So,
I
> see the current dichotomy between oral language and written language (and
> the related in vogue division of labor between innatists and
> environmentalists)as unfortunate. Of course, the innatist argument is
strong
> and in good health. But I don't think it is the whole picture. In effect,
> both language and writing capitalize on similar mediation processes and
both
> drive human cognition towards a historically based development beyond
their
> natural evolutionary determinations. Somehow the seeds of writing are
> inscribed in oral language as oral language remains alive in literate
> poetry. And I guess that in a specific ontogeny the learning of writing is
> intimately connected with the refinement of our linguistic dexterity. (Of
> course, I am not saying anything new here.) Most of the work in language
> today works on the border of biology and psychology, but I find the other
> border, the one between mind and society, equally relevant and, maybe,
even
> more challenging. So, I will not renounce the sovereignty of language so
> quickly to innatism.
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Luiz Carlos Baptista" <lucabaptista@sapo.pt>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
>
>
> > David,
> >
> > Tomasello does a terrific job in Cultural Origins, but I don't see it as
> an
> > alternative to innatism. When Chomsky talks of an innate "language
> faculty",
> > he proposes that its "maturation" - during a certain "critical" period -
> > depends on the exposure of the child to the proper environmental
settings
> > (for the latest exposition, cf. "New Horizons in the Study of Language
and
> > Mind", Cambridge UP, 2000). As far as I can tell, such concepts as
"joint
> > attentional scenes" and "social-pragmatic cues", as discussed by
> Tomasello,
> > actually contribute to our understanding of the interactional and
> cognitive
> > aspects involved in the acquisition of a particular language - seen as a
> > concrete instantiation of the innate "language faculty". Please correct
me
> > if I'm wrong.
> >
> > As regards your questions about the general topic, I have to admit that
> I'm
> > still in a very early phase of my investigations. But just to give you
an
> > example concerning "logotechniques" and digital media, I have a strong
> > interest in analyzing the relationship of video and computer games to
> > society at large. Such games could be thought of as the result of
> processes
> > of "world design" - what could be, in some sense, traced back to
tabletop
> > games, especially in the strategic and role-playing variety. This line
of
> > research could be extended to encompass the developments in fields such
as
> > Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life.
> >
> > That's it for the moment. Rgrds,
> >
> > Luiz Carlos Baptista
> > lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> > lucabaptista@hotmail.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Preiss" <david.preiss@yale.edu>
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: segunda-feira, 29 de Setembro de 2003 23:59
> > Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
> >
> >
> > > 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 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST