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

[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Unit of Analysis



I agree with your suggestions. I also consider actions to be transactions
and happy to open the way to "feelings" instead of "sensations," which in
English would accomplish the job.

But its a terrible problem that we live life forward and understand it
backwards. Leads to all sorts of tangles in the tread of life.

mike

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> if you add, "the capacity to be affected," then you open up theoretical
> possibilities for affect (emotion).
>
> I have recently suggested to think not in terms of actions but
> transactions. So, for example, listening to someone else requires (a)
> actively attending and (b) receiving what you (in most cases) not already
> know. That is, while actively attending to someone else speak, you do not
> know (grasp) what is affecting you until you realize that you are hurt
> (insulted etc).
>
> Anyway, you cannot reduce this to activity or passivity, because there are
> two movements, a going (attending) and a coming (receiving), efferent and
> afferent... So you are thinking in terms of transactions, the kind that you
> would get if you take seriously perezhivanie as the unity/identity of
> person and environment.
>
> Michael
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:18 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Aha! So we are not talking about a passive neonate. Whew.
> >
> > Passibility is a new word for me, Michael. The OED's first two entries
> > appear to incompass both Ivan and your usage:
> >
> > 1. Chiefly *Theol.* The quality of being passible; capacity for suffering
> > or sensation.
> > 2. Passiveness; inaction; sloth. *Obs.* *rare*.
> > To me, the addition of the word sensation to suffering broadens its
> meaning
> > significantly.
> >
> > Recently a Russian colleague suggested to me that Spinoza's use of the
> term
> > passion would best be translated as perezhivanie. Certainly it bears a
> > relationship to the concept of perezhivanie as that term is used by
> > Vasiliuk.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ivan, the word passive has some unfortunate connotation. The term
> > > passibility--the capacity to suffer--seems to come with a range of
> > > affordances (e.g., see my book *Passibility*).
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------------------
> > > Applied Cognitive Science
> > > MacLaurin Building A567
> > > University of Victoria
> > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> > >
> > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> > > <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Sasha
> > > >
> > > > Passive as in driven by the passions. Isn't that how Spinoza would
> > > > characterise animals and infants?
> > > >
> > > > Ivan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > festina lente
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 18:05, Alexandre Sourmava <avramus@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Ivan.
> > > > >
> > > > > To say that "that the neo-nate is not active at all, but passive,
> and
> > > > that therefore neo-nate behaviour is not activity" means to say that
> > neo
> > > > nate is not alive creature, but mechanic agregate of dead parts. And
> I
> > am
> > > > not sure that idea about passiveness of animals or neo-nate fallows
> > from
> > > > Spinoza :-).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sasha
> > > > >
> > > > >    扭抉扶快忱快抖抆扶我抗, 11 扼快扶找攸忌把攸 2017 18:07 Andy Blunden <
> > ablunden@mira.net
> > > >
> > > > 扭我扼忘抖(忘):
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I think a further elaboration of this idea would lead
> > > > > to an examination of needs and activity and sensuousness in
> > > > > connection with needs and their development in connection
> > > > > with activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > >> On 12/09/2017 1:01 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks Andy, the sense of 'visceral' is much more nuanced
> > > > >> in your text, yes, and quite different from what one could
> > > > >> grasp from the previous e-mail. And I now follow your
> > > > >> elaboration on micro- and macro-unit much better, so
> > > > >> thanks for that. I was hoping, however, that the
> > > > >> elaboration would lead to some acknowledgement of the role
> > > > >> of needs, real needs, as key to what the word 'visceral'
> > > > >> was suggesting here. I was thinking that rather than a
> > > > >> 'grasping', we gain more track by talking of an orienting,
> > > > >> which is how I read Marx and Engels, when Marx talks about
> > > > >> the significance of 'revolutionary', 'practical-critical'
> > > > >> activity, the fundamental fact of a need and its
> > > > >> connections to its production and satisfaction.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > >> *Sent:* 09 September 2017 03:30
> > > > >> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, it is tough discussing these topics by email. All the
> > > > >> issues you raise are treated in
> > > > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Goethe-
> > > > Hegel-Marx_public.pdf
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am *not* dividing the world into 'immediate, bodily,
> > > > >> and sensuous' and 'mediated, disembodied, and a-sensuous'.
> > > > >> The whole point is to begin by *not* dividing. By contrast
> > > > >> for example, Newton explained natural processes (very
> > > > >> successfully!) by describing a number of "forces"; a force
> > > > >> is an example of something which is not visceral or
> > > > >> sensuous (and also not discrete so it can't be a 'unit').
> > > > >> The "expression" of a force can be visceral (think of the
> > > > >> effect of gravity) but gravity itself is an invention
> > > > >> needed to make a theory of physics work (like God's Will)
> > > > >> but has no content other than its expression. People got
> > > > >> by without it for millennia. This is not to say it does
> > > > >> not have a sound basis in material reality. But it is
> > > > >> abstract, in the sense that it exists only within the
> > > > >> framework of a theory, and cannot therefore provide a
> > > > >> starting point or foundation for a theory. To claim that a
> > > > >> force exists is to reify an abstraction from a form of
> > > > >> movement (constant acceleration between two bodies).
> > > > >> Goethe called his method "delicate empiricism" but this is
> > > > >> something quite different from the kind of empiricism
> > > > >> which uncritically accepts theory-laden perceptions,
> > > > >> discovers patterns in these perceptions and then reifies
> > > > >> these patterns in forces and such abstractions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If you don't know about climatology then you can't guess
> > > > >> the unit of analysis. Marx took from 1843 to about 1858 to
> > > > >> determine a unit of analysis for economics. Vygotsky took
> > > > >> from about 1924 to 1931 to determine a unit of analysis
> > > > >> for intellect. And both these characters studied their
> > > > >> field obsessively during that interval. This is why I
> > > > >> insist that the unit of analysis is a *visceral concept*
> > > > >> unifying a series of phenomena, something which gets to
> > > > >> the heart of a process, and which therefore comes only
> > > > >> through prolonged study, not something which is generated
> > > > >> by some formula with a moment's reflection.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Each unit is the foundation of an entire science. But both
> > > > >> Marx's Capital and Vygotsky's T&S identify a micro-unit
> > > > >> but quickly move on to the real phenomenon of interest -
> > > > >> capital and concepts respectively. But capital (which
> > > > >> makes its appearance in chapter 4) cannot be understood
> > > > >> without having first identified the real substance of
> > > > >> value in the commodity. The rest of the book then proceeds
> > > > >> on the basis of this unit, capital (i.e., a unit of
> > > > >> capital, a firm). To ignore capital is to depict bourgeois
> > > > >> society as a society of simple commodity exchange among
> > > > >> equals - a total fiction. Likewise, Vygotsky's real aim it
> > > > >> to elucidate the nature and development of concepts. He
> > > > >> does not say it, and probably does not himself see it, but
> > > > >> "concept" is a macro-unit (or molar unit in ANL's term),
> > > > >> an aggregate of actions centred on a symbol or other
> > > > >> artefact. The whole point of introducing the cell into
> > > > >> biology was to understand the behaviour of *organisms*,
> > > > >> not for the sake of creating the science of cell biology,
> > > > >> though this was a side benefit of the discovery.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Andy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> Andy Blunden
> > > > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > >>> On 9/09/2017 5:31 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Andy, thanks for your clarification on the 'visceral'.
> > > > >>> The way you describe it, though, suggests to me an
> > > > >>> empiricist position that I know you do not ascribe to;
> > > > >>> and so I'll take it that either I've missed the correct
> > > > >>> reading, or that we are still developing language to talk
> > > > >>> about this. In any case, I assume you do not mean that
> > > > >>> whatever our object of study is, it is divided between
> > > > >>> the visceral as the 'immediate, bodily, and sensuous' and
> > > > >>> something else that, by implication, may have been said
> > > > >>> to be 'mediated, disembodied, and a-sensuous' (you may as
> > > > >>> well mean precisely this, I am not sure).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I do not know what the climatologist's unit of analysis
> > > > >>> is when discussing hurricanes either, but I do think that
> > > > >>> Hurricanes Irma, Jos谷, etc, are expressions of a system
> > > > >>> in a very similar way that any psychological fact is a
> > > > >>> expression of the society as part of which it occurs. I
> > > > >>> was thinking that, if we assumed for a second that we
> > > > >>> know what the unit for studying of hurricanes is (some
> > > > >>> concrete relation between climate or environment and
> > > > >>> hurricane), 'feeling' the hurricane could be thought of
> > > > >>> in may ways, only some of which may be helpful to advance
> > > > >>> our scientific understanding of human praxis. The way you
> > > > >>> seemed to refer to this 'visceral' aspect, as 'immediate,
> > > > >>> embodied, and sensous' would make things hard, because,
> > > > >>> are we 'feeling' the hurricane, or the wind blowing our
> > > > >>> roofs away? In fact, is it the wind at all, or the many
> > > > >>> micro particles of soil and other matter that are
> > > > >>> smashing our skin as the hurricane passes above us, too
> > > > >>> big, too complex, to be 'felt' in any way that captures
> > > > >>> it all? And so, if your object of study is to be 'felt',
> > > > >>> I don't think the definition of 'immediate, embodied, and
> > > > >>> sensuous' helps unless we mean it WITHOUT it being the
> > > > >>> opposite to 'mediated, disembodied, and a-sensuous'.
> > > > >>> That is, if we do not oppose the immediate to the
> > > > >>> mediated in the sense just implied (visceral is immediate
> > > > >>> vs. 'not-visceral' is mediated). So, I am arguing in
> > > > >>> favour of the claim that we need to have this visceral
> > > > >>> relation that you mention, but I do think that we require
> > > > >>> a much more sophisticated definition of 'visceral' than
> > > > >>> the one that the three words already mentioned allow
> > > > >>> for. I do 'feel' that in most of his later works,
> > > > >>> Vygotsky was very concerned on emphasising the unity of
> > > > >>> intellect and affect as the most important problem for
> > > > >>> psychology for precisely this reason.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I have also my reservations with the distinction that you
> > > > >>> draw in your e-mail between micro-unit and macro-unit. If
> > > > >>> the question is the production of awareness, of the
> > > > >>> 'experience of having a mind' that you are discussing
> > > > >>> with Michael, then we have to find just one unit, not
> > > > >>> two, not one micro and one macro. I am of course not
> > > > >>> saying that one unit addresses all the problems one can
> > > > >>> pose for psychology. But I do think that the very idea of
> > > > >>> unit analysis implies that it constitutes your field of
> > > > >>> inquiry for a particular problem (you've written about
> > > > >>> this). You ask about Michael's mind, and Michael responds
> > > > >>> that his mind is but one expression of a society.I would
> > > > >>> add that whatever society is as a whole, it lives as
> > > > >>> consciousness in and through each and every single one of
> > > > >>> our consciousness; if so, the unit Vygotsky was
> > > > >>> suggesting, the one denoting the unity of person and
> > > > >>> situation, seems to me well suited; not a micro-unit that
> > > > >>> is micro with respect to the macro-activity.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If you take the Spinozist position that 'a true idea must
> > > > >>> agree with that of which it is the idea', and then agree
> > > > >>> with Vygotsky that ideas are not intellect on the one
> > > > >>> hand, and affect on the other, but a very special
> > > > >>> relation (a unity) between the two, then we need a notion
> > > > >>> of 'visceral and sensous' that is adequate to our 'idea'
> > > > >>> or field of inquiry. We can then ask questions about the
> > > > >>> affects of phenomena, of hurricanes, for example, as
> > > > >>> Latour writes about the 'affects of capitalism'. And we
> > > > >>> would do so without implying an opposition between
> > > > >>> the feeling and the felt, but some production process
> > > > >>> that accounts for both. Perezhivanie then, in my view, is
> > > > >>> not so much about experience as it is about human
> > > > >>> situations; historical events, which happen to have some
> > > > >>> individual people having them as inherent part of their
> > > > >>> being precisely that: historical events (a mindless or
> > > > >>> totally unconscious event would not be historical).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am no fun of frightening away people in the list with
> > > > >>> too long posts like this one, but I think the issue is
> > > > >>> complex and requires some elaboration. I hope xmca is
> > > > >>> also appreciated for allowing going deep into questions
> > > > >>> that otherwise seem to alway remain elusive.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Alfredo
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > >>> *Sent:* 08 September 2017 04:11
> > > > >>> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Alfredo, by "visceral" I mean it is something you know
> > > > >>> through your immediate, bodily and sensuous interaction
> > > > >>> with something. In this sense I am with Lakoff and
> > > > >>> Johnson here (though not being American I don't see guns
> > > > >>> as quite so fundamental to the human condition). Consider
> > > > >>> what Marx did when began Capital not from the abstract
> > > > >>> concept of "value" but from the action of exchanging
> > > > >>> commodities . Commodity exchange is just one form of
> > > > >>> value, but it is the most ancient, most visceral, most
> > > > >>> "real" and most fundamental form of value - as Marx shows
> > > > >>> in s. 3 of Chapter 1, v. I.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I have never studied climatology, Alfredo, to the extent
> > > > >>> of grasping what their unit of analysis is.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In any social system, including classroom activity, the
> > > > >>> micro-unit is an artefact-mediated action and the
> > > > >>> macro-units are the activities. That is the basic CHAT
> > > > >>> approach. But that is far from the whole picture isn't
> > > > >>> it? What chronotope determines classroom activity - are
> > > > >>> we training people to be productive workers or are we
> > > > >>> participating in social movements or are we engaged in
> > > > >>> transforming relations of domination in the classroom or
> > > > >>> are we part of a centuries-old struggle to understand and
> > > > >>> change the world? The action/activity just gives us one
> > > > >>> range of insights, but we might analyse the classroom
> > > > >>> from different perspectives.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Andy
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> Andy Blunden
> > > > >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > >>> https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
> > > > >>>> On 8/09/2017 7:58 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> > > > >>>> I am very curious about what "visceral" means here (Andy), and
> > > > particularly how that relates to the 'interrelations' that David D.
> is
> > > > mentioning, and that on the 'perspective of the researcher'.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I was thinking of the Hurricanes going on now as the expressions
> > of
> > > a
> > > > system, one that sustains category 5 hurricanes in *this* particulars
> > > ways
> > > > that are called Irma, Jos谷, etc. How the 'visceral' relation may be
> > like
> > > > when the object is a physical system (a hurricane and the climate
> > system
> > > > that sustains it), and when it is a social system (e.g., a classroom
> > > > conflict and the system that sustains it).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Alfredo
> > > > >>>> ________________________________________
> > > > >>>> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> > > > edu>  on behalf of David Dirlam<modesofpractice@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> Sent: 07 September 2017 19:41
> > > > >>>> To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of Analysis
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The issues that have arisen in this discussion clarify the
> > > conception
> > > > of
> > > > >>>> what sort of entity a "unit" is. Both and Andy and Martin stress
> > the
> > > > >>>> importance of the observer. Anyone with some experience should
> > have
> > > > some
> > > > >>>> sense of it (Martin's point). But Andy added the notion that
> > experts
> > > > need
> > > > >>>> basically to be able to agree reliably on examples of the unit
> > > > (worded like
> > > > >>>> the psychological researcher I am, but I'm sure Andy will
> correct
> > me
> > > > if I
> > > > >>>> missed his meaning).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> We also need to address two other aspects of units--their
> > > > classifiability
> > > > >>>> and the types of relations between them. What makes water not an
> > > > element,
> > > > >>>> but a compound, are the relations between the subunits (the
> > chemical
> > > > bonds
> > > > >>>> between the elements) as well as those with other molecules of
> > water
> > > > (how
> > > > >>>> fast they travel relative to each other), which was David
> > Kellogg's
> > > > point.
> > > > >>>> So the analogy to activity is that it is like the molecule,
> while
> > > > actions
> > > > >>>> are like the elements. What is new to this discussion is that
> the
> > > > activity
> > > > >>>> must contain not only actions, but also relationships between
> > them.
> > > > If we
> > > > >>>> move up to the biological realm, we find a great increase in the
> > > > complexity
> > > > >>>> of the analogy. Bodies are made up of more than cells, and I'm
> not
> > > > just
> > > > >>>> referring to entities like extracellular fluid. The
> > identifiability,
> > > > >>>> classification, and interrelations between cells and their
> > > > constituents all
> > > > >>>> help to make the unit so interesting to science. Likewise, the
> > > > constituents
> > > > >>>> of activities are more than actions. Yrjo's triangles illustrate
> > > that.
> > > > >>>> Also, we need to be able to identify an activity, classify
> > > > activities, and
> > > > >>>> discern the interrelations between them and their constituents.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I think that is getting us close to David Kellogg's aim of
> > > > characterizing
> > > > >>>> the meaning of unit. But glad, like him, to read corrections.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> David
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andy Blunden<
> ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Yes, but I think, Martin, that the unit of analysis we need to
> > > > aspire to
> > > > >>>>> is *visceral* and sensuous. There are "everyday" concepts which
> > are
> > > > utterly
> > > > >>>>> abstract and saturated with ideology and received knowledge.
> For
> > > > example,
> > > > >>>>> Marx's concept of capital is buying-in-order-to-sell, which is
> > not
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> "everyday" concept of capital at all, of course.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Andy
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>> Andy Blunden
> > > > >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > >>>>> https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On 7/09/2017 8:48 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Isn*t a unit of analysis (a germ cell) a preliminary concept,
> > one
> > > > might
> > > > >>>>>> say an everyday concept, that permits one to grasp the
> > phenomenon
> > > > that is
> > > > >>>>>> to be studied in such a way that it can be elaborated, in the
> > > > course of
> > > > >>>>>> investigation, into an articulated and explicit scientific
> > > concept?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> just wondering
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Martin
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Greg Thompson<greg.a.thompson@
> > > gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Not sure if others might feel this is an oversimplification
> of
> > > > unit of
> > > > >>>>>>> analysis, but I just came across this in Wortham and Kim's
> > > > Introduction
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> the volume Discourse and Education and found it useful. The
> > short
> > > > of it
> > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>> that the unit of analysis is the unit that "preserves the
> > > > >>>>>>> essential features of the whole".
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Here is their longer explanation:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> "Marx (1867/1986) and Vygotsky (1934/1987) apply the concept
> > > "unit
> > > > of
> > > > >>>>>>> analysis" to social scientific problems. In their account, an
> > > > adequate
> > > > >>>>>>> approach to any phenomenon must find the right unit of
> > analysis -
> > > > one
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>> preserves the essential features of the whole. In order to
> > study
> > > > water, a
> > > > >>>>>>> scientist must not break the substance down below the level
> of
> > an
> > > > >>>>>>> individual H20 molecule. Water is made up of nothing but
> > hydrogen
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>> oxygen, but studying hydrogen and oxygen separately will not
> > > > illuminate
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> essential properties of water. Similarly, meaningful language
> > use
> > > > >>>>>>> requires
> > > > >>>>>>> a unit of analysis that includes aspects beyond phonology,
> > > > >>>>>>> grammar, semantics, and mental representations. All of these
> > > > linguistic
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> psychological factors play a role in linguistic
> communication,
> > > but
> > > > >>>>>>> natural
> > > > >>>>>>> language use also involves social action in a context that
> > > > includes other
> > > > >>>>>>> actors and socially significant regularities."
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (entire chapter can be found on Research Gate at:
> > > > >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319322253_Introduct
> > > > >>>>>>> ion_to_Discourse_and_Education
> > > > >>>>>>> )
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I thought that the water/H20 metaphor was a useful one for
> > > thinking
> > > > >>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>> unit of analysis.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> -greg
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > >>>>>>> Assistant Professor
> > > > >>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
> > > > >>>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > > >>>>>>> Brigham Young University
> > > > >>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
> > > > >>>>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> > > > >>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>