[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception

>From another culture?


On Sep 16, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin,
> What about ethnocentrism? Isn't that a critique of a culture "from
> without"? (by that I don't mean a critique from nowhere, but rather I mean
> a critique from somewhere else).
> -greg
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>> wrote:
>> Surely culture is the way we live *together*, Rod.
>> Martin
>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> But the culture each of us is within is not the same culture, surely,
>> that anyone else is within. Culture is not an artefact in the sense that
>> Andy talks about artefact -mediated communication so there is always space
>> for noticing how others notice differently. Babies can pick up on the
>> difference between interaction with a familiar and an unfamiliar partner,
>> children form friendship groups which are defined by those they exclude as
>> well as those they include and we travel to learn about ourselves and
>> others by noticing how people do things differently in other places and
>> other times. I would argue that it is only BY noticing differences in the
>> ways others notice or pay attention to things that we are able to notice
>> how WE notice things. It is by realising that we are not quite like other
>> people that we can realise what we are like.
>>> And I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the point you were
>> making, Michael!
>>> Rod
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 21:21
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>>> Okay, here is a thought experiment.  You are a character in a novel,
>> let's say it is War and Peace.  You have decided to critique the way in
>> which Napoleon is presented in the novel.  Yet the only information you
>> have to make the critique is from your experiences in the novel.
>> Everything fits together based on the way the narrative is set out.  It is
>> not that you no information on Napoleon outside the novel, it is that you
>> do not realize that there is even the possibility that there might be
>> information outside of the novel.  You critique from within but the ability
>> to critique is actually controlled by Tolstoy, who has his own reasons for
>> portraying all the characters in the way he does.  But you do not even
>> realize there is a Tolstoy, this is simply the world that has been set up
>> for you - as Huw suggests the purpose of the system is the system.  Is
>> there really any chance for a true critique or is the game rigged, are you
>> always going to wind up in some place that we already determined by the
>> novel itself.
>>> Now let's say you can as a character you can step outside the novel,
>> realize it is a novel, understand that this is a system that Tolstoy has
>> created for his own purposes (writers have been experimenting with this
>> idea for generations).  Isn't that a qualitatively different critique from
>> within, and isn't this the only critique that allows you to escape your
>> life as a character in the novel.
>>> If this makes no sense I apologize.
>>> Michael
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
>> on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:30 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>>> We critique it from within. All the time.
>>> Martin
>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>> But then Martin are you saying we can't critique our culture.  Or if we
>> could what would be the process.  I guess all this comes from a
>> conversation I was having this morning - what are the aims of education?
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer
>>>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:14 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>>>> How could we step out of culture, Michael, if it sustains human life?
>> Surely culture is pervasive: no human being lives outside culture. Created
>> to a purpose? Not sure what you mean by that.
>>>> Martin
>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>> But in order to do this don't we have to be able to challenge the
>> primacy of culture as it exists now?  And to do this don't we need to
>> acknowledge that culture is not organic or necessarily pervasive but
>> something that is created to a purpose.  How do we critique something if we
>> don't believe we can step outside of it?
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> [xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] on
>>>>> behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:49 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>>>>> Agreed, but I would say that the solution, if there is one, is not to
>> live without culture but to live with a better culture.  Follow Foucault
>> along one of the roads not taken...
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
>> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The problem I am having Martin is what adorno and horkheimer alluded
>> to in the dialectic of enlightenment...where reason and culture becomes the
>> mechanisms for our demise.  It is one thing to have culture, but its
>> another thing to have a culture associated with thanatos.
>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martin John
>>>>>> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014  2:20
>> PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate
>> perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Okay, Paul, but if we
>> start with the fact that our bodies not only live in the material world but
>> are components of that material world, I think we end up with a different
>> conclusion than Kant did. And can we live in a state of nature in which
>> culture plays no role? No, because human biology has evolved so that we
>> cannot survive except by living and working together, or without all the
>> tools and other artifacts that previous generations have designed,
>> fabricated, and shown us how to use.
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
>> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tying to the material world is my language martin...but in essence
>> kant is saying the same thing, as a subject of experience we are tied to
>> the object of experience vis-a-vis our form of sensibilities, which is
>> different from the form of our understanding which can transcends the
>> former but never access the object in itself.
>>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martin John
>>>>>>> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014  12:25
>> PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate
>> perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Did Kant say that our
>> bodies tie us to our material world? I am more familiar with Kant's
>> statements that a universal, transcendental mind creates mental
>> representations which enable each of us to bring 'order' to the 'chaos of
>> sensations,' so that we can never truly know material reality.  The value
>> of Hegel consists in challenging this 'cognitivism' that continues to
>> dominate the social sciences today.
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
>> pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would think it is a problem in how sensations are mediated.  That
>> is, if kant is right and our bodies tie us to the material world... does it
>> and our form of understanding coupled with the material world also dictate
>> an unmediating universal way by which we humans should recursively go about
>> reproducing and reorganizing our species-being?  Simply put, is there a
>> state of nature we should attempt to live-in dictated by our bodies and the
>> material world that is not mediated by culture?
>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Carol
>>>>>>>> Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014
>>>>>>>> 11:13 AM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture
>>>>>>>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l]
>>>>>>>> Re: mediate perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>On
>>>>>>>> 15 Sep 2014 7:08 AM, "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
>>>>>>>> <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Carol,
>>>>>>>>> It would appear, to me at least, that the unmediated sensations
>>>>>>>>> you are referring to parallels kant ' s forms of sensibilities
>>>>>>>>> and understandings, which belong to the body and schopenhauer 's
>>>>>>>>> will.  I would agree that culture enframes them in a variety of
>>>>>>>>> ways.  However, do they not, as sensations, tie us down to the
>>>>>>>>> material world irrespective of the mediated ways we encounter them?
>>>>>>>> Yes, I think so,and but I am not sure why that is a problem.
>>>>>>>> Please explain.
>>>>>>>> However, surely we can also remember these sensations.  Today some
>>>>>>>> of our suburbs had their water cut off for about 21 hours.  I am
>>>>>>>> sure I wasn't the only who could imagine how lovely it would be to
>>>>>>>> have a shower (or bath or wash, depending on your culture); and we
>> know what water tastes like.
>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Carol
>>>>>>>>> Macdonald < carolmacdon@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/15/2014
>>>>>>>>> 8:39 AM  (GMT-05:00)
>>>>>>>>> </div><div>To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>, "eXtended Mind,
>>>>>>>>> Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject:
>> [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>>>>> mediate perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Hi
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>> This seems to be an all inclusive scheme which ties us down, but
>>>>>>>>> at the same time purports to account for "everything".  But are
>>>>>>>>> there really only universal artefacts? There must be at least the
>>>>>>>>> possibility of
>>>>>>>>> - misunderstanding (all though of course you (Andy) can do this;
>>>>>>>>> - as yet potential understanding
>>>>>>>>> - a total lack of understanding.
>>>>>>>>> And there is still the need to account for unmediated sensation -
>>>>>>>>> so if we are hungry, we need to eat; but the eating is mediated.
>>>>>>>>> We need to take in fluid, but everything apart from water also
>>>>>>>>> seems to be mediated. (And of course we serve water in culturally
>>>>>>>>> mediated ways.) I am sure I have too simplistic a view which
>>>>>>>>> misunderstands your schema Andy, but I am trying to keep open
>> Shotter's concerns.
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>> On 15 September 2014 14:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ah! I see!
>>>>>>>>>> As Hegel said: "There is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in
>>>>>>>>>> nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally
>>>>>>>>>> contain both immediacy and mediation." I have no great problem
>>>>>>>>>> with anyone saying that anything is mediated by anything else,
>>>>>>>>>> where it is appropriate. My problem is that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> specific insight of Vygotsky, that artefact-mediation of actions
>>>>>>>>>> provides an especially productive unit of analysis for science
>>>>>>>>>> is lost if
>>>>>>>>> mediation
>>>>>>>>>> in the broad sense is mixed up in CHAT literature with
>>>>>>>>>> artefact-mediation to the point that artefact-mediation is lost.
>>>>>>>>>> Still, I would prefer that
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> you were to make the point you were referring to you used some
>>>>>>>>>> expression other than "mediation."
>>>>>>>>>> Artefact mediation of actions is a brilliant insight. I can do
>>>>>>>>>> what I like, but to do anything (other than have dreams or
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts) I have to
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> some material object to transmit my actions, so to speak - a
>>>>>>>>>> tool, a
>>>>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>>>>> a gesture, or whatever - but all these artefacts which I use,
>>>>>>>>>> without exception, are products of the history and culture into
>>>>>>>>>> which I was
>>>>>>>>> born. I
>>>>>>>>>> can choose which artefact to use, but culture and history produce
>> them.
>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>> every action I take is essentially cultural-historical as well
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> personal.
>>>>>>>>>> Also, because artefacts are material objects, their physical
>>>>>>>>>> form is the same for everyone, it is universal. So communication
>>>>>>>>>> as much as miscommunication takes place through everyone
>>>>>>>>>> interpreting the same material objects, artefacts, that I am
>>>>>>>>>> using in my actions. How can they
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> that? Because they too mediate their actions with the same set
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> universal
>>>>>>>>>> artefacts! So all human action is opened to cultural and
>>>>>>>>>> historical analysis which is as objective as any branch of
>> natural science.
>>>>>>>>> Wonderful,
>>>>>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to study how action changes then you need to study
>>>>>>>>>>> the history and production of the action.  Under such
>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances,
>>>>>>>>> assertions
>>>>>>>>>>> that concepts cannot mediate (the production of) actions become
>>>>>>>>>>> more obviously false.  If one has simplified, through
>>>>>>>>>>> "clarity", the action
>>>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>>>>> from its genetic base then it may seem correct to assert that a
>>>>>>>>>>> concept cannot mediate an action.
>>>>>>>>>>> The conservation tasks (e.g. conservation of volume) are an
>>>>>>>>>>> elegant way to demonstrate this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 September 2014 04:26, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> he, he, Huw!
>>>>>>>>>>> For me, reduction, simplification and typology are the very
>>>>>>>>>>> problems that need to be remedied by clarification! and I
>>>>>>>>>>> really don't think obfuscation is ever helpful, generally being
>>>>>>>>>>> used to obscure the genesis of phenomena. Distinction is not
>>>>>>>>>>> equal to separation.
>>>>>>>>>>> I really don't know what you are referring to with product and
>>>>>>>>>>> history. Perhaps you could explain?
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  I agree about precision, but not with a call for "clarity".
>>>>>>>>>>> Reduction to clarity is a projection or reification of the
>>>>>>>>>>>  need for simplicity.  Simplicity usually entails typologies or
>>>>>>>>>>>  other simplistic devices which prevent the conception and
>>>>>>>>>>>  perception of genetic relations.  Actually in cases such as
>>>>>>>>>>>  these we are interested in (clarifying) the entanglements
>>>>>>>>>>>  between artefacts and mind.  I think It would be equally
>>>>>>>>>>>  appropriate and meaning-prompting to state that one needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>  obfuscate (see darkly) too.
>>>>>>>>>>>  I think it is this "need for simplification" which leads me to
>>>>>>>>>>>  disagree with the 2nd paragraph.  For example, why separate
>>>>>>>>>>>  the act from its production and history?         Of course, if
>>>>>>>>>>> one had the discipline to de-couple clarity from
>>>>>>>>>>>  modes of simplicity, then we wouldn't have the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>  Huw
>>>>>>>>>>>  On 14 September 2014 07:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>      My impression, Greg and David Ki, is that in the CHAT
>>>>>>>>>>>  tradition
>>>>>>>>>>>      specifically, as opposed to the English language in
>> general,
>>>>>>>>>>>      mediation refers to *artefact-mediation*. Of course, every
>>>>>>>>>>>  action
>>>>>>>>>>>      is both mediated and immediate, and in many discursive
>>>>>>>>>>>  contexts,
>>>>>>>>>>>      "mediation" is a concept which may be evoked quite
>>>>>>>>>>>  legitimately,
>>>>>>>>>>>      but with no special significant for the use of CHAT. In
>>>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>>>      theory, for example, mediation of activities by other
>>>>>>>>>>>  activities
>>>>>>>>>>>      or institutions is as ubiquitous as mediation of actions by
>>>>>>>>>>>      artefacts is in the domain of psychology. But if the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>      psychology, I think artefact-mediation is so central, that
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>      prefer to spell it out and use the term
>>>>>>>>>>>  "artefact-mediated" rather
>>>>>>>>>>>      than the vague term "mediated".
>>>>>>>>>>>      I have come across usages like "mediated by such-and-such a
>>>>>>>>>>>      concept." Like Alice in Wonderland one can use words to
>>>>>>>>>>>  mean what
>>>>>>>>>>>      you like, but I find a formulation like this in the
>>>>>>>>>>> context
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>      CHAT problematic, because it is using the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>  "mediation" in
>>>>>>>>>>>      the most general sense in a way which obscures the fact
>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>>      concept is not immediately present in any act of
>>>>>>>>>>>  communication or
>>>>>>>>>>>      any other act, and therefore *cannot mediate actions*.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Artefacts,
>>>>>>>>>>>      such as spoken words, which may be signs for a concept,
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>      course mediate an act of communication. But the point is
>>>>>>>>>>>  that a
>>>>>>>>>>>      word is not universally and unproblematically a sign for
>>>>>>>>>>>  any one
>>>>>>>>>>>      concept. It means different things to different people.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Concepts
>>>>>>>>>>>      are not artefacts. Artefacts are universal in their
>>>>>>>>>>>  materiality,
>>>>>>>>>>>      but particular in their meaning. So when we have a concept
>>>>>>>>>>>  in mind
>>>>>>>>>>>      when we use a word in communication, the communication is
>>>>>>>>>>>  mediated
>>>>>>>>>>>      by the word not the concept, and it is a mistake not to be
>>>>>>>>>>>  aware
>>>>>>>>>>>      of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>      So I would prefer it if "mediation" were always used in
>>>>>>>>>>>  qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>      way so that its specific meaning is made clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>      Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>      PS. And David Ki is completely right in his comment, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>             ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>      *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>      http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>>>  <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>      <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>      Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>          Does "mediation" only apply to language and culture?
>>>>>>>>>>>          Or does it include nerve fibers? (in which case we
>>>>>>>>>>>  would need
>>>>>>>>>>>          to include
>>>>>>>>>>>          reflexes)
>>>>>>>>>>>          And does it include our socio-contextual surround as in
>>>>>>>>>>>          Bateson's man with
>>>>>>>>>>>          the stick? (in which case, we would need to include
>>>>>>>>>>>  newborns).
>>>>>>>>>>>          Just wonderin'.
>>>>>>>>>>>          -greg
>>>>>>>>>>>          On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, David H Kirshner
>>>>>>>>>>>          <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>  <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                               Thanks for replies.
>>>>>>>>>>>              I'm recalling several years ago Jim Greeno decided
>>>>>>>>>>>  to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>              talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>              situated cognition because the pragmatics of
>>>>>>>>>>>  adjectival
>>>>>>>>>>>              use implies there
>>>>>>>>>>>              has to be a contrasting non-situated cognition.
>>>>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>>>>              speaks of
>>>>>>>>>>>              situativity theory. It seems, with the exception of
>>>>>>>>>>>              physical reflexes (and
>>>>>>>>>>>              perhaps pre-conscious infant activity), all human
>>>>>>>>>>>  action
>>>>>>>>>>>              is mediated (and
>>>>>>>>>>>              perhaps a lot of non-human action, as well). So,
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>              worth noting that
>>>>>>>>>>>              "mediated action" doesn't specify a kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>  action, but
>>>>>>>>>>>              rather a
>>>>>>>>>>>              theoretical assumption about all human action;
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>              there seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>              some variation in interpretation of what that
>>>>>>>>>>>  assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>              entails.
>>>>>>>>>>>              David
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher,  and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
>>>>>>>>> Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>> ________________________________
>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<
>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
>> by an official order form.
> -- 
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson