Re: [xmca] Elements and Units

Date: Tue Jan 30 2007 - 06:56:54 PST


You spoke neither to my suggestion that the analysis take place in a
goal-orientated mediated context nor to the "word" being delineated before
the analysis. I believe your trouble with the word "word" is that your
analysis attempts to reiffy the ethereal and not attend to pragmatic


                      David Kellogg
                      <vaughndogblack who-is-at To: xcma <>
            > cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: [xmca] Elements and Units
                      xmca-bounces who-is-at web
                      01/29/2007 01:10
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,

Dear Eric:

  For what I do (and I think also for what you do) the word "word" is a
little troublesome. Compare:

  a) "An electron moves in an orbit."
  b) "the orbital motion of the electron"
  c) "the electron's orbital motion"

  It seems to me that a) is primary school English, while b) and c) is
closer to the secondary school scientific English outcome that you are
looking for.

  The problem is that b) has exactly the same number of words as a), and c)
has fifty percent less. If "word" is the essential unit of meaning, it is
rather hard to explain why a) and b) are significantly different, much less
how b) and c) can belong to exactly the same scientific speech genre.

  Now, you may, very properly, complain that this kind of word counting is
a trivial exercise, not an analysis. Right you are. But let's consider the
possible outcomes anyway.

  I guess you know that race and genetics and even eugenics forms the
unspoken basis of an awful lot of the explanations for school failure in
the USA (see, for example, recent "work", if one may call it that, by
Charles Murray).

  In England they have always had a bit more trouble selling this
explanation, because until fairly recently the lower classes were all
white. In reality, the same problem exists in America; thanks to the stern
moral code of the slave-holding south, 70% of Americans have enough black
blood to be legally black under the old Jim Crow laws. But since of course
we live in a classless society, we all have to pretend that race exists.

  Unfortunately for the Murrays of the world, what DNA research clearly
demonstrates is that race doesn't exist: genetic variation within races is
greater than that between races. In circumstances like these, racists
everywhere (the Balkans, the former Soviet Union, India, and even Los
Angeles) fall back on language; when the eyes deceive you, you can always
rely on your ears to reify differences in a way that flatters your own
particular in-group.

  And sure enough, linguistics appears, at first glance, to help the racist
case a bit more than the chimera of race. You probably read about the
studies reported in the New York Times magazine that seemed to show that
middle-class kids get exposed to TWICE as "much" vocabulary as working
class kids. What this means is that they get vocabulary with a much higher
type-to-token ratio (more word families for the same number of words).

  Last week, among the American "heroes" that graced the first lady's box
during Bush's miserable "State of the Union" message was the lady who
founded "Baby Einstein", a company that markets videos for two-year-olds.
The idea, of course, is to expose them to those middle-class magic words at
a tender age so that they have a "head start" by the time they get to
school (not, of course, to get them hooked on television and advertising
before they develop a taste for human interaction, though she did manage to
flog the company to Walt Disney for a tidy sum).

  Despite my respect for the work of Basil Bernstein, the linguistic
explanation for school failure has always rankled. Bernstein argues that
high school curricula are "strongly classified" and high school teacher
talk is "strongly framed" (that is, the difference between topics is quite
clear, and within each topic there are definite speech genres).

  Strangely enough, when we look at MIDDLE CLASS home language, we find
that middle class parents tend to weakly classify the topics in
conversations they have with their kids. For example, they are very open to
imaginative narratives that their children insert into every day
activities, and they are also very apt to use, e.g. statements as
directives, as in "I don't think Nana wants you chewing on her tail,

  My desk (and my field) is littered with an apparently endless supply of
first language acquisition studies by grad students in linguistics studying
the acquisition of middle class English by their middle class kids. A very
few people, such as Gordon Wells, have gone out and tried to study how
working class kids from working class homes try to make the transition to
school language and fail.

  But Gordon doesn't think that the language parents address to kids fixes
their destiny. Instead, he suggests that in the long run reading vs.
television is as important as the kind of language you get from Mom and
Dad. This makes a LOT more sense to me, particularly if we give vocabulary
a key role in school achievement.

  Just walk into a library and look at a copy of Jane Eyre. Then access the
on-line script of a TV adaptation of Jane Eyre. Just in purely quantitative
terms, the former has ten or twenty times as many words as the latter, and
when we look at the type-token ratios, they are even more different.

  Of course, there has to be more to it than the magic words. For one
thing, by the time they get to high school kids have stopped talking like
their parents and started talking like their peers. For another, when you
work in primary education, as I do, you have to think a lot about what kids
do before they have the words to do what they want to do. For a third
thing, the word "word" means something quite different in Korean, either a
whole phrase or a mere syllable. And then there's the problem we started
with; a single thought like "an electron moves in an orbit" doesn't seem to
have a fixed number of words.

  The word "word" is an abstraction; it doesn't really exist. "A" and "the"
are words, "apple" and "of" are words, "dribble" is two words (at least!)
As Bakhtin pointed out, though, "utterance", understood as the stretch of
language that occurs between two changes of speakers, is a real, concrete,
social unit. It's certainly the unit of meaning that we use here on XMCA!

  David Kellogg
  Seoul National University of Education

Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:34 PST