Had these data about 5th dimension Englishpanish list been published?
That sounds a very interesting project.
Honorine Nocon wrote:
>
> Charles Nelson wrote in response to Ricardo:
>
> >If Luria and Vygotsky were wright, the use of words by speach makes the
> >thinking process radically different. And I deduce from this that
> >thinking in english is something very different than thinking in
> >portuguese, or russian or spanish etc
>
> It depends on what we mean by language. If referring to
> syntactical-phonological differences, they exist but their influence need
> not be, and probably isn't, "very" big. If we speak of the lexical and
> sociocultural associations, then the difference can be very large, and so
> different cultural groups--whether speaking different languages or the
> "same" language--may think very differently.
>
> -----------
> This exchange is really interesting to me. In pursuing my doctorate,
> I changed disciplines, from second language acquisition (Spanish), to
> Communication. My work with SLA, and the sociolinguistics of the
> US-Mexico border, led me to question the role of decontextualized language
> instruction, i.e. "foreign" language classes, or language learning itself
> as a vehicle for developing understanding between language/culture groups.
> Since coming to UCSD, and particularly, LCHC, I've found new means for
> trying to understand how people can share meaning in spite of their
> different relations to the linguistic tools they are using. It's so much
> easier to account for discoordinations or breakdowns in communication,
> than to account for how people negotiate their different relations to
> language and other tools, and achieve or approximate understanding, in
> spite of those differences. We can teach or learn second languages or
> specialized languages (eg., Bakhtin's social languages), but
> access to that "play ground" of language seems to require shared history
> in shared contexts, not to mention the goodwill of the interlocutors.
>
> Charles' comment resonates with my perceptions about the roles of
> languages in that bilingual discussion list in which we discussed
> Ferreiro's piece (some of her students in Mexico were participating.)
> The 5tadim list grew out of the interest of people in Mexico and
> California to continue discussions about socio-cultural-historical
> theories of development that had started at a conference in Queretaro.
> A number of participants, both in Mexico and California, were working
> with, or interested in the Fifth Dimension model learning settings (hence,
> 5tadim or Quinta Dimension).
>
> The organizers announced a bilingual list, in which contributions in
> Spanish OR English were welcome. The list was originally organized around
> shared readings (e.g. Cole 1996, Vygotsky 1962, 1986, Castorino et al).
> While the goal was to have shared texts, in Spanish and English, getting
> them proved to be a challenge. Still, over 100 people joined the
> discussion, which was most intense between spring 1997 and fall 1998.
>
> Negotiating a bilingual discussion in which monolinguals (English and
> Spanish) were welcome was an interesting challenge. The national language
> that dominated on the list was Spanish. While the content of the
> discussions was driven by the shared (sometimes) texts, reflection on
> language use on the list also emerged, especially around the issue of
> "Spanglish" or blends of Spanish and English, but also around the accents
> and other diacritics which translated electronically into gibberish.
> There were occasional calls for translations, into both Spanish and
> English, and for a while, Spanish messages followed by English
> translations became the norm.
>
> While the participants' different relations to the national languages
> actually became explicit at times, as in expressions of thanks from
> Mexican participants for some very interesting attempts by US
> participants to use Spanish, there were also implicit differences in
> relations to the tools of communication that were not related to national
> language, but to academic discipline. For example, some participants were
> linguists and felt comfortable "playing" with language, experimenting with
> spellings and punctuation, or creating bilingual neologisms, e.g.,
> espangles. This was not appreciated by other participants.
>
> A more marked difference in relation to the linguistic tools being used,
> both in Spanish and English, was associated with the discipline of
> Psychology. A shared vocabulary which crossed English and Spanish did a
> lot of work to exclude those from other disciplines, some of whom
> expressed their inhibitions about not being fluent in that vocabulary as
> they apologized for periods of silence.
>
> Honorine Nocon,
> UCSD/LCHC