[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Intensions in context and speech complexity ; From 2-?
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xmca] Intensions in context and speech complexity ; From 2-?
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:42:05 -0300
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <4A658FC80200008800044E0C@gwmail.ncs.mmu.ac.uk>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <4A658FC80200008800044E0C@gwmail.ncs.mmu.ac.uk>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.8
Departamento de Física Experimental
Instituto de Física - USP
Caixa Postal:66318 - CEP:05315-970
São Paulo - SP - Brazil
Tel: (+55)11 3091-7077
Citando C Barker <C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk>:
> Many thanks for circulating the paper. I'm delighted to see 'internalization'
> being seriously questioned. Having worked as a postgrad in a sociology
> department in the 1960s, the whole language of 'internalization' is, for me,
> still attached to the 'structural functional' perspective then associated
> with Talcott Parsons and his colleagues, whose highly conservative system was
> still very influential in that period.
> I do hope your paper will provoke some serious discussion. A CHAT without
> creative actors isn't worth having.
> Colin Barker
> Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the
> Metropolitan University's email disclaimer available on its website
> >>> "Jones, Peter" <P.E.Jones@shu.ac.uk> 07/20/09 4:14 PM >>>
> Hi all
> I take the liberty of attaching a recent published paper on the theme of
> vygotsky's conception of the transformation of external into inner speech in
> case it may be of some interest. The abstract is rather stark and possibly
> unhelpful in tone but I hope there is something a bit more comprehensible and
> relevant within!
> All v best
> Pete E Jones
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Cole
> Sent: 20 July 2009 15:57
> To: email@example.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Intensions in context and speech complexity ; From 2-?
> Andy/David/ Lois:
> Why are the simplifications when children imitate sentences that carry out
> the intentions of others and limit their agency to
> complying with external constraints imposed by others absent when they carry
> out their own intentions in speech acts that are instrumental to carrying
> out those goals and may be more complicated, grammatically, than what
> experimenters ask of them? I get the dropping out the subject part in inner
> speech, I think.
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Mike, my reading of Vygotsky's explanation of the process of speech being
> > abbreviated as it transforms into silent speech, as I recall, is that the
> > child for example leaves off the subject of a sentence for example, because
> > they already know the subject, and such like. I.e., as I read it, they
> > dense elements of context internally so that the verbal instruction to
> > themselves carries that context implicitly. Just like if I say "Pass me
> > that" the hearer won't understand without the help of a shared visual
> > So intention is part of the context, but it is the context, and it's
> > various mental representations and cues which is relevant, isn't it?
> > So for example, the continued presence of all the elements of a snippet of
> > dialogue act as cues which would allow something to be repeated, because
> > entire act in response to cues in the context can be repeated.
> > But also, relevant to a topic we have been discussing, Mike, the project of
> > which the speech act is a part has to be understood and shared by the child
> > if they are to make sense of it, and of course psychological testing is not
> > generally such a project.
> > I don't really know if that's relevant to the distinction you're after
> > Mike.
> > Andy
> > Mike Cole wrote:
> >> David's note of a few days ago on 3-7 year old changes in egocentric
> >> speech
> >> reminded
> >> me of an old article by Slobin and Welch (reprinted in Ferguson and
> >> Slobin,
> >> *Studies of Child Development, 1963)
> >> *that it took a while to track down. The study is often cited in studies
> >> of
> >> elicited imitation where an adult says some
> >> sentence and asks a little kid to repeat it. Kids simplify the sentence in
> >> normal circumstances ("Where is the kitty"
> >> becomes "where kitty") and other such stuff. There is a pretty large
> >> literature on this.
> >> But when I went to find the phenomenon in the article that had most struck
> >> me, I could not find it in the recent lit
> >> on elicited imitation. The phenomenon seems relevant to the monologic,
> >> dialogic etc speech discussion.
> >> The phenomenon is this: When a 2yr/5month old child is recorded saying
> >> "If
> >> you finish your eggs all up, Daddy, you
> >> can have your coffee." they can repeat this sentence pretty much as it is
> >> right afterward. But 10 minutes later it has
> >> become simplified a la the usual observation.
> >> Citing William James (the child has an "intention to say so and so")
> >> Slobin
> >> and Welch remark:
> >> If that linguistic form is presented for imitation while the intention is
> >> still operative, it can be faily successfully imitated. Once the intention
> >> is gone, however, the utterance must be processed in linguistic terms
> >> alone
> >> -- without its original intentional and
> >> contextual support." In the absence of such support, the task can strain
> >> the child's abilities and reveal a more limited competence than may
> >> actually
> >> be present in spontaneous speech (p. 489-90).
> >> This kind of observation seems relevant in various ways both to language
> >> acquisition in school settings and to my reccurrent
> >> questions about the social situation of development. Is it relevant to the
> >> discussion of egocentric and social speech, David?
> >> mike
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> email@example.com
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden (Erythrós Press and Media) http://www.erythrospress.com/
> > Orders: http://www.erythrospress.com/store/main.html#books
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> xmca mailing list
This message was sent using IFUSP Webmail - USP/Sao Paulo/Brazil.
xmca mailing list