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

[Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology



​Aria,
Any updates to report on Professor Chomsky's take on Vygotsky?
-greg​

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> See below. He finds Vygotsky's work "quite interesting." Let's see if he
> elaborates. I find his persepctive on the "Linguistic Wars" also
> interesting.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_Wars
>
> Aria
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:chomsky@mit.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:09 PM
> To: Aria Razfar
> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
>
> The "linguistic wars" are largely an invention of overheated imaginations
> of
> those who thought they were fighting them.  If you check the record you'll
> discover that I barely participated, and didn't consider them any different
> from interchanges within what's claimed to be "my side" of the non-existent
> wars.
>
> Vygotsky did quite interesting work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aria Razfar [mailto:arazfar@uic.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:28 PM
> To: Noam Chomsky
> Cc: arazfar@uic.edu
> Subject: FW: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
>
> See question below re: "opinion on Vygotsky"?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:12 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
>
> Since we have Professor Chomsky online, might we be able to ask him his
> opinion of Vygotsky?
>
> Martin
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Metaphor was my take and other cognitive linguist's take (i.e.
> > Lakoff). I believe his rejection of "Metaphor" at least in the
> > embodied cognition sense is rooted in the "Linguistics Wars." Several
> > people in this thread as well others in the field of cognitive
> > linguistics made the claim that he was and remains a Cartesian
> > dualist. He definitely does not consider himself as such. In order to
> > establish the field of linguistics, he had to position it within the
> > broader arch of western enlightenment and romanticism. Hence, the
> > title of
> the book.
> >
> > Aria
> >
> > Aria Razfar, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture Director of
> > Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction University of Illinois at
> > Chicago
> > 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147
> > Chicago, IL, 60607
> >
> > Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action
> > Research (ELMSA) www.elmsa.org
> >
> > Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd
> > Tel: 312-413-8373
> > Fax: 312-996-8134
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John
> > Packer
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:47 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
> >
> > Hi Aria,
> >
> > It would help to see the message that Noam is responding to! I don't
> > see, for example, how metaphor crept into this discussion. (Actually,
> > looking back through the thread, I see that this was your proposal.)
> >
> > I suppose a lot depends on what one means by being "a Cartesian." As I
> > just wrote in another message, Chomsky was, I think, positioning his
> > approach to linguistics in a tradition in which Descartes was
> > prominent: in which one tries to figure out what makes possible a
> > specific characteristic or ability of the mind. Chomsky asked what
> > universal competence would be necessary to make language possible -
> > any
> language.
> >
> > I'm not trying to attach a label to the man; but he give the book its
> > title for a reason, and a very respectable one.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Here is Chomsky's response to whether or not he is a Cartesian. Not
> > surprisingly, he categorically rejects the idea of "metaphor" as well.
> > At least he's open to change. Now whether our subject is dead or alive
> > that is a different question.
> >>
> >> Aria
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:chomsky@mit.edu]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:16 PM
> >> To: Aria Razfar
> >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
> >>
> >> The reason for the phrase "Cartesian linguistics" was explained very
> > clearly in the opening pages of the book.  No one who read at least
> > that far could believe that I am "a Cartesian," let alone anyone who
> > read farther.  I can't account for the illiteracy of "notable folks."
> >>
> >> It's also not a metaphor.  Rather, exactly as I described it, which I
> > would repeat verbatim today.
> >>
> >> There's no need to argue against "mind-body dualism." As I've
> >> discussed
> > repeatedly, Newton's discoveries terminated the thesis, at least in
> > its classical form, through Descartes and beyond.
> >>
> >> Of course I've changed my views since the '50s and '60s, in fact in
> >> the
> > past few months.  That's normal in subjects that are not dead.
> >>
> >> Noam Chomsky
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson