[Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan

[Greg Thompson]

David,
This is helpful for me and my very substantial naivete about Hassan and
Bernstein. I'm going to have to do some tracking down of these sources (you
wouldn't by any chance have PDF's that you could share with me offline?),
but I fear that I'm still not understanding the demonstratives that you
offered. In the 10, 11, 12 example that you provided from Hasan, what is
the point with regard to elaborated or restricted? (or whatever dimension
she sees as relevant? or if no dimensions are relevant, then what would
Hasan have to say about these three examples and what they have to say
about anything? I'm still a little lost. I warned you that I'm slow!).

Also, I thought I might summarize my concern with an example, also from the
south side of Chicago - but the other south side - the white one. (and yes,
I'm raising some questions about the relevant community we would assign to
the code - I suspect that the south side Chicago codes that you speak of is
probably closer to the code spoken in Mississippi than to the south side
Chicago code described below).

http://www.amazon.com/Place-Stand-Persuasion-Working-Class-Sociolinguistics/dp/0195140389
In a wonderful ethnography of a white working class bar on the South Side
of Chicago conducted while she was working as a bartender, Julie Lindquist
takes up, among other things, the Marxian notion that working class people
don't think counterfactually (and yes, I'm entirely sincere when I say that
this is a wonderful ethnography - fantastically thick description with long
chunks of transcripts of actual conversations at the bar - very nicely
done). In her book, she presents a number of examples of arguments that
broke out in the bar in which people appear to refuse to think
counterfactually.

Unfortunately, in the material included in the book, she misses an example
in which the patrons do, in fact, employ counterfactuals.

So that is caution #1 when doing this kind of work, there is a tendency to
miss examples that don't conform to one's theory. This can of course happen
in many different ways and typically for non-nefarious reasons.

But there is another, perhaps more serious, concern here. It may, in fact,
be the case that you do see fewer counterfactuals in working class bars.
Where this gets troubling is when this gets extended to the consciousness
of "those" people. People on the political left and right both have a kind
of fascination with this kind of thinking. People on the left see it as
evidence of the malicious effects of capitalism - working class people have
a degraded consciousness and that is why they are working class (i.e.,
because of their degraded consciousness, they can't realize the nature of
their oppression and/or how to rise up against their oppressor, or, most
commonly, they don't vote in their interests - with the Democratic party).
People on the right see it as evidence that capitalist meritocracy works -
working class people have a degraded consciousness and that is why they are
working class. And perhaps it is telling that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx
"saw" in the working class a degraded and almost sub-human consciousness.
Of course, it is likely that Marx got much of this insight from Adam Smith
who pointed out that this was a real problem of capitalism and the reason
why capitalist nations need universal education (and despite the crassness
of his descriptions of working class people, Smith truly believed that the
"ignorance" and "stupidity" of the person working in the pin factory was
the result of the nature of the work itself, not due to any inherent
properties of the working man himself - so his position was actually much
closer to Marx's position than to the Republican position today).

My concern, then, is that this isn't so much a matter as the consciousness
of a people as it is the practical stuff of the interactions that are to be
had there. If you are at all familiar with the feeling of a white working
class bar on the south side of Chicago, then you will appreciate the fact
that that there are things that one does and there are things that one
doesn't do when in such a place. One thing that one (generally) doesn't do
is to speak "like an academic". You're likely to get your ass kicked if you
talk that way. So then you, as a speaker in a working class bar, have to
choose (David, I like your idea of "volitional", but would imagine
different timescales of volitionalality, e.g., having multiple repertoires
and being able to choose among them in the moment vs. choosing to learn or
take on a different repertoire over a longer course of time). So, in the
bar, do you choose to risk appearing like an effete impudent intellectual
snob (David, I assume you recognize these words, and yes, these white
working class folks are largely Republican - Reagan-ites), or do you take
up the pose of the self-respecting white working class man who "tells it
like it is" (not how it "might be"!)?

The point is simply to beware of putting too much about the way people
speak into the people themselves. It is more often the case that the
contexts that people habitually encounter call forth certain ways of
speaking. But to say that these ways of speaking limit how they could
possibly speak/think, that seems a bit problematic for me.

And, without having read the pieces that you sent along David, the title of
the book from which the Cloran piece is taken (Pedagogy and the Shaping of
Consciousness) leaves me very anxious about precisely this point. It seems
a bit too much to argue that pedagogy can actually shape consciousness. But
I may well be reading too much into the title. Any further insights here
would be much appreciated.

Best,
greg

p.s., David, perhaps you have been in this very situation?







On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:10 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I was trying to keep it short.
>
> The key text is:
>
> Hasan, R. (1973). Code, Register, and Social Dialect. In Bernstein, B.
> (ed.) Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology
> of Language. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
>
> Also:
>
> Halliday, M.A.K. (1972). Towards a Sociological Semantics. In Collected
> Works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 3, London: Continuum, pp. 323-354.
>
> The examples I gave were made up especially for you. I am not a native
> speaker of South Chicago English, but I remember thinking that "be"
> insertion is sometimes a sign of counteractuality (as in "They be sayin" as
> opposed to "they said" or "they say"), and so a sign of the conditional.
> That is, where North Chicago and Loop English will use "if" and then the
> future tense to express conditionality ("If you get that dirty, I'll smack
> you") South Chicago English uses the more direct form, the conjuntion
> "and", and then "be" insertion to suggest the conditional ("Get that dirty
> and I be hit yo up side yo face").  But I don't really know; this is one of
> those situations where we need an authentic speaker and not just a genuine
> one.
>
> Here are Hasan's examples (also made up).
>
> (10) If you climb up that wall you may hurt yourself.
> (11) You climb up that wall and I'll take a stick to you.
> (12) If you climb up that wall you may ruin your nice new shirt. (p. 69,
> but that's in my Chinese copy).
>
> Ruqaiya's point is that (10) and (12) differ in meaning but the difference
> doesn't cover the whole clause complex but only the result of the
> condition, whereas in (10) and (11) it covers the whole complex, including
> the way that the condition is worded: this suggests--but of course it
> doesn't prove--a more general, more genetic causation, rather than a merely
> functional one.
>
> I don't think any examples--Ruqaiya's or my own--are meant to be anything
> more than demonstrative, Greg. In order to see real evidence, we need very
> large data bases and some way of looking at significant wordings. This was
> done by Ruqaiya's student:
>
> Cloran, C. (1999) Contexts for learning. In Christie, F. (Ed) Pedagogy and
> the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes. London:
> Continuum, pp. 31-65.
>
> She compares categories like "action", "commentary", "observation",
> "reflection", "report", "account", "generalization", "plan", "prediction",
> "conjecture" and "recount' (storytelling). The big differences came in
> "generalization" (elaborated code +) and "action" (restricted code +), and
> the differences were statistically highly significant (Mann Whitney test).
>
> David Kellogg
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Thanks for this elaboration (!) of Hasan, Bernstein, and a bit of
> Halliday.
> > Very dense and lots for me to learn. I'm absorbing it as best I can...
> >
> > Two clarification that might help me in my understanding:
> >
> > 1. Are your a) and b) actual recorded examples of talk? I found the use
> of
> > the habitual be to feel a bit out of place (unless the point was that the
> > parent was going to repeatedly (habitually) be hitting the child upside
> > their face).
> >
> > 2. If these are actual examples of talk, could you help me make more
> direct
> > links between what Bernstein/Hasan have to say about these examples and
> the
> > examples themselves? I think I'm getting the point about code vs. dialect
> > vs. register but I'm confused about the specific analysis you offer when
> > you write:
> > "Accordingly, in a restricted coding orientation, like b), the
> orientation
> > is to sameness, to objective rules that bind us together in communal
> > solidarity, and therefore not towards individual choices.In an elaborated
> > coding orientation, like a), the orientation is to difference, to
> > individual motivation, and towards interdependence."
> >
> > There is a leap here (perhaps justified) between the examples as I read
> > them and the claims about orientation and as a result I wasn't clear how
> > these features were manifest in the examples.
> >
> > Sorry for being so restricted in my reading, and many thanks for your
> > multiple elaborations!
> >
> > -greg
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Everybody:
> > >
> > > First of all, I appreciate--nay, I share--every moment of Paul's rage.
> > And
> > > even some of his incoherence, although I suspect some of it is due to
> his
> > > use of a hand-held device. I really should have explained my comments
> on
> > > Obama's speech much better. Yes, Henry--I did think it was stupid and
> > > heartless. It was stupid in its lack of logic (God makes things worse
> so
> > > that we'll make them better) and its lack of irony (we don't deserve
> > > "grace" but God gives it to us anyway--out of the barrel of a racist's
> > > gun). It was heartless in its emphasis on healing (forgiveness is not
> > only
> > > an impossible but an impudent demand, because the only people who have
> > the
> > > right to forgive the killer are dead; what the survivors now need is
> > called
> > > "justice").
> > >
> > > Secondly, I'm really in awe of Greg's exegeses on Bernstein and Hymes,
> > and
> > > I don't think it at all beside the point. I am re-reading Ruqaiya's
> > > Collected Works right now, and there is a lot there, all of it
> relevant.
> > > But I want to extract only two points--Ruqaiya's careful distinction
> > > between dialect, register and code, and her rejection of the
> distinction
> > > between competence and performance.
> > >
> > > Consider the following pair of sentences, spoken to two six year olds:
> > >
> > > a) If you get your new shirt dirty,you'll be sorry.
> > > b) Get dat dirty an I be hit you up side yo face.
> > >
> > > The difference in dialect extends right down from the meaning (the
> > > semantics), to the wording (the lexicogrammar), to the phonology (the
> > > "sounding"). It is also, contrary to what people think, mostly
> > volitional:
> > > you can choose to lose your dialect, and many people do. You can also
> > > choose to acquire a new one, and when Paul complains about the
> > > inauthenticity of Obama's dialect he is pointing to the fact that it is
> > > voluntary (although I should point out that while Obama was indeed
> raised
> > > in a white family, he was also raised in a state where whites were a
> > > minority). Unlike Paul, I believe the voluntary quality of a dialect
> is a
> > > guarantee of its genuineness (that is, its meaningfulness to the user),
> > and
> > > I am not a big fan of authenticity (since I am mostly a second language
> > > user myself). Authentic dialects have an essentially conventional,
> > > meaningless relationship to the people who are born into them; genuine
> > > dialects have a relationship of choice (whether the user is born into
> the
> > > dialect and chooses to retain it or the user has to learn it
> deliberately
> > > as an act of identity), and for that reason they are more meaningful
> > > (because for Ruqaiya meaning is always paradigmatic; it implies you
> could
> > > have done or said something else but you didn't). Either way, a dialect
> > is
> > > a distinction of the user, and not of the use.
> > >
> > > The difference in register is much more slight; it does not include the
> > > phonology but it certainly does include the wording. Labov would
> > > concentrate on the non-standard use of the copula (and a lot of his
> > > argument on the complexity of AAVE has to do with the complex rules for
> > > copula insertion and deletion). Halliday would concentrate on other
> > factors
> > > which are less formal: In one case, the newness of the shirt is
> specified
> > > while in the other it is left exotropic (that is, in the here and now
> > > rather than encoded eternally in the language). In one case, the
> > > consequence is left somewhat vague: it is quite possible, although
> > > unlikely, that the six year old will not interpret the utterance as a
> > > threat, while in the second it is much more specific and concrete.
> > >
> > > But the difference in code orientation is very clear, and my wife, who
> > grew
> > > up with the Chinese equivalent of b) in her ears, recognized it
> > > immediately. Bernstein derived coding orientation from the ideas of
> > > Toennies, and in particular his distinction between Gemeinschaft
> > > (community, solidarity, mechanical unity) and Gesellschaft (society,
> > > interdependence, organic unity). In a Gemeinschaft, the emphasis is on
> > what
> > > you are not who you are, and in a Gesellschaft the emphasis is on your
> > > ineffability and irreplacabitlity. Accordingly, in a restricted coding
> > > orientation, like b), the orientation is to sameness, to objective
> rules
> > > that bind us together in communal solidarity, and therefore not towards
> > > individual choices.In an elaborated coding orientation, like a), the
> > > orientation is to difference, to individual motivation, and towards
> > > interdependence. Unlike dialect, it's not a difference in the way it
> > sounds
> > > and it's not restricted to the user: you could easily create elaborated
> > > coding orientations in South Chicago English, and people do. Unlike
> > > register, it's not a difference in the way things are worded and it is
> > not
> > > at all a function of particular uses of language. Coding orientation
> is a
> > > pattern of meaning--it's an instance of what Ruqaiya calls semantic
> > > variability, and it is related causally to class.
> > >
> > > Hymes accepts Chomsky's distinction between competence and
> > performance--in
> > > fact, he multiplied it times four, because his construct of
> > "communicative
> > > competence" actually includes four categories: whether or not something
> > is
> > > linguistically permissible, whether or not it is sociolinguistically
> > > appropriate, whether or not it is psycholinguistically feasible, and
> > > whether or not it is pragmatically done. But for Ruqaiya, such
> > dichotomies
> > > are dualisms--they imply an ideal competence divorced and actually not
> > > available for marriage to material performances: we can never really
> > know,
> > > for example, in an instance of grammatical, sociolinguistic,
> > > psycholinguistic or pragmatic failure, whether the underlying
> competence
> > is
> > > there or not. For Ruqaiya, the only bifurcation--and it is a highly
> > > transient, ever-shifting one--is between the potential and the
> performed.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:06 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > > I ‘m waiting on David too! And I would love your question as to
> whether
> > > > Ruqaiya answers your conjecture:
> > > > > “...the efficacy of deployment of a code/style may not be a
> property
> > of
> > > > the code/style or of the speaker but rather of the combination of
> > > > code/style, speaker, and context.”
> > > > I especially like that this issue is raised in the context of an
> actual
> > > > use of code shifting in the public eye. I suspect that Ruqaiya would
> > > like a
> > > > theory of grammar that can take on just such a language usage event.
> > > > Henry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Henry, this raises a question that is similar to the one that Hymes
> > > > raises with regard to Bernstein, namely, what is the effect of the
> use
> > > of a
> > > > given code/style?
> > > > > Hymes' concern is that Bernstein assumes that a code is a thing
> that
> > > has
> > > > properties all by itself, outside of the contexts of use.
> > > > > As for obamas eulogy, my sense from listening to the audio was that
> > it
> > > > was VERY well received by the audience. Maybe someone has evidence to
> > the
> > > > contrary?
> > > > > But this would make an important point that the efficacy of
> > deployment
> > > > of a code/style may not be a property of the code/style or of the
> > speaker
> > > > but rather of the combination of code/style, speaker, and context.
> > > > > Is this ground that is covered by Hasan?
> > > > > David?
> > > > > (And I wouldn't want to take away from that discussion but this
> > should
> > > > help provide more clarity with regard to what exactly she was up to).
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:25 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ouch! Paul blew my cover. And President Obama’s as well.
> Apparently,
> > > > he’s not the code shifter I thought he was and my ear is just not
> good
> > > > enough to hear it. Maybe I didn’t want to hear. I have been so
> > > disappointed
> > > > with what is happening with our political “leadership” in this
> > country, I
> > > > didn’t want to believe the president’s eulogy was one more charade.
> > Maybe
> > > > the amazing Supreme Court decisions last week put me in a state of
> > > euphoria
> > > > and I just didn’t want to come down. But, is there no middle ground
> > where
> > > > Obama is at least seen to be trying, in good faith, to connect with
> > those
> > > > who ARE adequate representatives of African American English
> > Vernacular?
> > > > One might say that Obama learned AAEV as a second dialect and will
> > always
> > > > have a “foreign accent” in it. I am wondering how the audience in
> that
> > > AME
> > > > church in Charleston, especially those who have truly lived the
> “black
> > > > prophetic tradition", felt about Obama’s attempts at code shifting.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I hope this post is seen more as an attempt to move the discussion
> > of
> > > > issues dear to Ruqaiya, especially code, than as a political red
> > herring.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With respect,
> > > > >> Henry
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
> > > > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Obama ' s eulogy is tantamount to bill clinton playing the sax in
> > > > front of a black audience.  This is a young man raised in a white
> > middle
> > > > class community, who came across, "the black prophetic tradition" at
> > > > reverend wright's church much, much later in life.  His attempt to
> > speak
> > > to
> > > > his audience is not an adequate representation of the phonetic,
> > semantic,
> > > > etc. differences between AAEV and standard american English
> highlighted
> > > by
> > > > molefi Asante and others....
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® II
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: HENRY
> > > SHONERD <
> > > > hshonerd@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:06/29/2015  6:57 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> > > > </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > > </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ruqaiya Hasan </div><div>
> > > > >>> </div>One way to comment on Obama in the church is to think of
> > > > language, in part, as a way of construing things/events in the world.
> > > Obama
> > > > was construing the murders from the perspective of the speech
> community
> > > of
> > > > the church goers there, Black and deeply Christlan. He, like Martin
> > > Luther
> > > > King Jr, was a master of code shifting, so his he can construe he
> same
> > > > event very differently in a press conference (where he talks to “the
> > > > American people”, all of them. But the event (the murders) is the
> same.
> > > > What’s different is not only construal, but context of Obama’s
> > speaking.
> > > > Variations in construal (of the same event) and context (when and
> where
> > > > Obama speaks) makes for huge differences in meaning, semantics. I
> think
> > > > this is a perfect example of how meaning and the structuring of
> meaning
> > > for
> > > > linguistic purposes (semantics) is NOT universal, even within what is
> > > > considered the same language (English, a many splendored thing). The
> > > > Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRE) of Whorf and Sapir from many
> > > decades
> > > > back comes in here. But originally  it was focused entirely on
> lexicon.
> > > And
> > > > it made the bold, but unsupportable claim, that language users are
> > > > absolutely constrained in their thinking by their birth language. If
> > so,
> > > > language wouldn’t change nor would second language learning be
> > possible.
> > > > More tenable is a “weak” version of the LRE, which allows us to
> > > understand
> > > > Obama’s code and construal shifting. When I say “we” I mean those of
> us
> > > who
> > > > have lived with this code and construal shifting for a long time. I
> > think
> > > > that Vygotky’s conjecture that a person that doesn’t  know his first
> > > > language until he learns a second makes sense if one includes
> learning
> > a
> > > > second dialect, or even plays with “coding orientation”, or any other
> > > > device we use as speakers to make meaning, in context and about the
> > > world.
> > > > And I agree with David that semantic structure of any language
> variety
> > > can
> > > > not be reduced to lexicon. It is part of the lexico-grammatical
> > continuum
> > > > (see Halliday) from morphology (word formation processes), to syntax
> > > (word
> > > > order), to discourse (the manipulation of language units  larger than
> > the
> > > > clause) and includes prosody (intonation), gesture. Moreover, meaning
> > can
> > > > be abstracted from context (something linguists do all the time) but
> > > > meaning then is lost. And the devil is in the details.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am very happy that I am getting a chance to talk about all of
> > this,
> > > > and I do hope that I am staying relevant to the thread: Ruquaiya. And
> > for
> > > > me, if I understand David rightly, grammar IS relevant. It is about
> > > > meaning. It is part, I think, of Vygotsky’s life’s work as a social
> > > > semiotician.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I wish I was as good as David with the punny humor: “Smart”
> indeed.
> > > > LOL. The substance of the pun, the serious part, that Bernstein was
> > > > misunderstood by your proverbial provincial American audience, is
> > > credible
> > > > and probably emipirically confirmable. But we’ve come a long way,
> baby.
> > > We
> > > > elected Obama!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Henry
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> P.S. Dam MIT! Martin and David have moved on, so my posting isn’t
> > as
> > > > SMART as I wanted it to be. However, Martin’s quote from Labov is the
> > way
> > > > middle-class American used to be in 1972, right?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:51 PM, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> First of all, Nancy's 100% right: it's all about social class.
> > > > Ruqaiya was
> > > > >>>> 100% Marxist: she knew that if language could vary with the USE
> > > (that
> > > > is,
> > > > >>>> registerial variation, the sort of thing you see on an airplane
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > >>>> compare the language used by the air craft controller giving
> > > > imperatives,
> > > > >>>> the pilot in the cockpit using declaratives and the stewardess
> > using
> > > > polar
> > > > >>>> questions about coffe and tea, chicken and beef) then it could
> > also
> > > > vary
> > > > >>>> with the USER (that is, dialectal variation, the sort of thing
> you
> > > > hear
> > > > >>>> when you move from the north of England to the south, or from
> > > America
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> Australia, or from a black working class neighborhood to a white
> > > > one). But
> > > > >>>> Ruqaiya and her student Clare Cloran were the ones who really
> > > provided
> > > > >>>> empirical evidence that class dialects were not simply matters
> of
> > > > phonology
> > > > >>>> and phonetics. There were differences in lexical choice, and
> > > > difference in
> > > > >>>> grammatical patterns as well. So class "dialects" were not
> simply
> > > > dialects.
> > > > >>>> In fact, they were NOT dialects at all. This is pretty easy to
> see
> > > > today,
> > > > >>>> when even the BBC allows Scottish, Welsh and other dialects, and
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > >>>> use an Australian dialect to fly a plane just as easily as you
> can
> > > to
> > > > offer
> > > > >>>> the passengers chicken or beef. But perhaps it was much more
> > > > difficult to
> > > > >>>> see in America, where the difference between white English and
> > black
> > > > >>>> English sounded so much like a dialect rather than a register.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If you listen to Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, you will
> > see
> > > > that
> > > > >>>> the difference between white and African-American Vernacular
> > English
> > > > (AAVE,
> > > > >>>> in Labov's terminology) really isn't reducible to dialect. Obama
> > > > doesn't
> > > > >>>> just use the beautiful meters and cadences of the black church:
> he
> > > > also
> > > > >>>> uses sloppy, imprecise, and at one point completely
> > > > >>>> outrageous reasoning ("Oh, but God works in strange ways!"). At
> > one
> > > > >>>> point, he tells us that grace is something "we didn't ask for,
> but
> > > God
> > > > >>>> gives it to us anyway", and at the end of the talk he makes it
> > clear
> > > > that
> > > > >>>> Clementa Pinckney and the eight other black people murderously
> > > gunned
> > > > down
> > > > >>>> because they opened their church to a stranger of another race
> and
> > > > tried to
> > > > >>>> convert him had actually "found grace". This is truly grace
> > unasked
> > > > for but
> > > > >>>> given anyway! I think that if Obama were addressing any other
> > > > audience, the
> > > > >>>> irony would be palpable. But in this register, there is no trace
> > of
> > > > irony
> > > > >>>> anywhere in the part of the speech concerning God (although
> there
> > is
> > > > some
> > > > >>>> in the parts of the speech concerning social justice,
> > demonstrating
> > > > that
> > > > >>>> the patterns of meaning are to do with the use and not the
> user).
> > > > This lack
> > > > >>>> of irony, at least when it comes to the unlooked for gift of
> > > "grace",
> > > > has
> > > > >>>> nothing to do with dialect and everything to do with what
> Ruqaiya
> > > > would
> > > > >>>> call coding orientation.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ruqaiya knew that this mattered. The same thing that allows us
> to
> > > see
> > > > irony
> > > > >>>> and double meanings is what allows us to have figurative
> language,
> > > > and to
> > > > >>>> see grammatical metaphors (i.e. that something like "to develop"
> > > > which is
> > > > >>>> normally encoded as a process can be recoded as a
> > > > noun--"development"--so
> > > > >>>> that it can be measured, given agency, classified, and developed
> > in
> > > > other
> > > > >>>> ways. This is, according to Ruqaiya, the child's next "big
> break"
> > > into
> > > > >>>> language--it's just as important as the development of the
> mother
> > > > tongue
> > > > >>>> out of "child language" (what Vygotsky called "autonomous
> speech")
> > > > and the
> > > > >>>> development of school subjects out of everyday language. In
> fact,
> > > > it's an
> > > > >>>> inseparable part of the latter, and if children cannot learn to
> > talk
> > > > about
> > > > >>>> the unseen in science as well as in religion, to use gramamtical
> > > > metaphors,
> > > > >>>> they will not be able to develop the coding orientations that
> are
> > > > required
> > > > >>>> in a class society for jobs that come with goodies (i.e. middle
> > > class
> > > > jobs).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So, Greg's 100% right too. Like many debates in academia, the
> > > argument
> > > > >>>> between Bernstein and Labov very quickly became ill-tempered and
> > > even
> > > > >>>> demagogic. The very fact that people were reducing "coding
> > > > orientation" to
> > > > >>>> "dialect" (and I even reduced it--almost--to "class dialect" in
> my
> > > > original
> > > > >>>> post) shows how essentializing the debate became. Bernstein
> NEVER
> > > > would
> > > > >>>> have used the American notion of "smartness". But he was smart
> > > enough
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> know that if you live in a class society, it's going to have a
> big
> > > > effect
> > > > >>>> on your language, and that language is going to be an important
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > >>>> reproducing the next generation of class distinctions. For this
> he
> > > was
> > > > >>>> pilloried. But mostly he was pilloried by Americans who believed
> > > that
> > > > >>>> language is the land of opportunity (and who believed, as
> Chomsky
> > > was
> > > > >>>> teaching, that semantics is something quite separate from and
> not
> > at
> > > > all
> > > > >>>> linked to grammar).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> And so Martin puts his finger on the real irony. It was
> BERNSTEIN
> > > who
> > > > >>>> argued a non-essentialist, relativist position--it was BERNSTEIN
> > who
> > > > argued
> > > > >>>> that coding orientations were not universal essences but were
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> what you were trying to do with language and with whom (which
> > > > >>>> was--inevitably in a class society--linked although not fully
> > > > determined by
> > > > >>>> your class). Labov's position was that all language had a common
> > > > underlying
> > > > >>>> semantics--that there were no differences in coding
> orientations,
> > > only
> > > > >>>> differences in dialects. And THAT is essentialism.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Of course, Bernstein was an Englishman: if he ever had said that
> > > some
> > > > >>>> people were smarter than others, all he would have meant was
> that
> > > > some were
> > > > >>>> better dressed.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Martin John Packer <
> > > > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi David,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I'm confused; wasn't Labov's book 'Language in the Inner City:
> > > > Studies in
> > > > >>>>> the Black English Vernacular' a study of codes, and of
> > > > code-switching? And
> > > > >>>>> weren't his studies of what we denote with a word such as 'cup'
> > > > directed
> > > > >>>>> against an essentialist (Aristotelian) model of semantics?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Expecting to be corrected... :)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Martin
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:41 AM, David Kellogg <
> > dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya also had an important contribution to make concerning
> > > > another
> > > > >>>>>> problem that has surfaced on this list many times, a problem
> > which
> > > > is
> > > > >>>>> ever
> > > > >>>>>> present in the work of Cole and Scribner, and also in Paula
> > > > Towsey's and
> > > > >>>>>> Mike Cole's contributions to the Symposium on Vygotsky's
> > Concepts:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://vimeo.com/13550409
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Mike's contribution is entitled "Do College Professors Think
> > Like
> > > > >>>>> Children,
> > > > >>>>>> Primitives, or Adolescents?" and it's essentially concerned
> with
> > > > what
> > > > >>>>>> Ruqaiya called "semantic variation" in general and "code
> > > > orientation" in
> > > > >>>>>> particular. Ruqaiya, as will be evident to anyone who reads
> her
> > > > >>>>> "exotropic
> > > > >>>>>> theories"paper, was an ardent champion of Bernstein's work (in
> > > > which she
> > > > >>>>>> played a considerable role). This brought her into conflict
> with
> > > > Labov,
> > > > >>>>> who
> > > > >>>>>> was the major American socioliinguist of the time. For Labov,
> > > there
> > > > was
> > > > >>>>>> simply no such thing as semantic variation: the semantic
> > > categories
> > > > were
> > > > >>>>>> more or less universal, and if you believed that they were
> > somehow
> > > > shaped
> > > > >>>>>> by code orientation, as Bernstein did, then you were saying
> that
> > > > some
> > > > >>>>>> people were somehow less intelligent than others.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Mike's version of Labov's position is not that semantic
> > categories
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>>> universal, but rather that the acquisition of "true concepts"
> > > > cannot be
> > > > >>>>>> dependent on formal schooling. Of course, on one level, that
> has
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>>> true, since true concepts are initially developed in
> > laboratories
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>> libraries rather than schools. But for Ruqaiya, class
> societies
> > > > produce
> > > > >>>>>> class dialects, and class dialects vary not only according to
> > > their
> > > > >>>>>> functional registers but also according to their "code
> > > > orientations".
> > > > >>>>> Some
> > > > >>>>>> of these code orientations are towards concepts, and some are
> > not.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, HENRY SHONERD <
> > > hshonerd@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Good on Carol’s challenge and David’s response. But I would I
> > > take
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> term “conventional” to mean “cultural” and much preferable to
> > > > >>>>> “arbitrary”
> > > > >>>>>>> when describing the pairing of phonemes and morphemes. I
> think
> > > > this is
> > > > >>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>> important issue, if we are to take Port Royal Grammar and
> > > Saussure
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>> be a
> > > > >>>>>>> useful point of departure for a theory of grammar for the
> CHAT.
> > > > >>>>>>> Henry
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, David Kellogg <
> > > dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, the Port Royal Grammar was extremely important in a
> > number
> > > of
> > > > >>>>> ways.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Politically, it was an attempt to reestablish the
> rationalist,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Protestant-leaning current of thinking about language and
> > > society
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>>>> had
> > > > >>>>>>>> been almost crushed by the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre
> > and
> > > > was
> > > > >>>>>>>> eventually totally crushed when Louis XIV revoked the Edict
> of
> > > > Nantes
> > > > >>>>> (I
> > > > >>>>>>>> tried to find the site of the Port-Royal monastery a few
> > months
> > > > ago
> > > > >>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>> was in Paris and there isn't even rubble.) And
> linguistically,
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>> contribution of the Port-Royal Grammarians can be seen as an
> > > > extension
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> that universalist rationalist spirit:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> a) The underlying semantic distinctions of all languages
> (e.g.
> > > > >>>>> concepts,
> > > > >>>>>>>> spatiotemporal categories) are essentially the same.
> > > > >>>>>>>> b) The basic syntactic distinctions of all languages (e.g.
> > > > nouns/verbs,
> > > > >>>>>>>> subjects/predicates) are essentially the same.
> > > > >>>>>>>> c) Although all of these distinctions do exist, there isn't
> > any
> > > > >>>>>>> principled
> > > > >>>>>>>> distinction between vocabulary and grammar, because what
> some
> > > > languages
> > > > >>>>>>>> express in a single word can be expressed in another
> language
> > > by a
> > > > >>>>> whole
> > > > >>>>>>>> wording.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ergo: the "words 'n rules" model of language, which is the
> > basic
> > > > model
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> use in all pedagogical grammars today, has no scientific or
> > even
> > > > >>>>> logical
> > > > >>>>>>>> foundation. There is a distinction, of course, but it's much
> > > more
> > > > like
> > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's distinction between learning and development.
> That
> > > is,
> > > > words
> > > > >>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>> learned; grammar develops.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Halliday explains why this should be. What we call
> vocabulary
> > is
> > > > >>>>>>>> essentially a "word's eye view" of the units of the clause,
> > > > relating
> > > > >>>>> them
> > > > >>>>>>>> to open-class words, to local areas of meaning, and to
> > > > non-proportional
> > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, contextually variable "car-horns" rather
> > > than
> > > > >>>>>>> universal
> > > > >>>>>>>> "traffic lights". That is why a word like "love" means
> > something
> > > > >>>>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>> in different lexical environments, while a morpheme like
> > plural
> > > > "s"
> > > > >>>>>>> always
> > > > >>>>>>>> means pretty much the same thing. What we call grammar is
> > > > essentially a
> > > > >>>>>>>> "wording's eye view" of the units of the clause, relating
> them
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> closed-class words, to system-wide areas of meaning, and to
> > > > >>>>> proportional
> > > > >>>>>>>> relations (that is, the "traffic lights" instead of the car
> > > > horns).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Now, from these three properties--open/closed class words,
> > > > >>>>> local/general
> > > > >>>>>>>> meanings, and proportional/non-proportional effects--we can
> > > guess
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>>>>> vocabulary is learned incrementally and piece by piece, but
> > > > grammar
> > > > >>>>>>>> develops in a non-linear, revolutionary fashion. That is, of
> > > > course,
> > > > >>>>>>>> precisely what we see: you learn ten or fifteen words a day,
> > but
> > > > when
> > > > >>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>> acquire that plural 's', you have led a social revolution
> that
> > > > will
> > > > >>>>>>>> transform every single (that is, every singular) noun that
> you
> > > > have
> > > > >>>>>>> already
> > > > >>>>>>>> learnt and generalize to (and generalize!) every conceivable
> > > > singular
> > > > >>>>>>> noun
> > > > >>>>>>>> you could ever learn in the future. Ditto articles, tenses,
> > > > grammatical
> > > > >>>>>>>> metaphor, etc.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I think that's what Ruqaiya's "critique" of Vygotsky really
> > > > means: it
> > > > >>>>>>> means
> > > > >>>>>>>> that we now have an extremely important and precise means
> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> distinguishing between learning in development in precisely
> > the
> > > > area
> > > > >>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky was most interested in, except that it's not the
> > > > development
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> word meaning so much as the development in the meaning of
> > > > wordings.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Of course, Vygotsky did have access to grammars. He knew
> > > > personally
> > > > >>>>>>>> linguists like N.I. Marr (who took part in the seminars that
> > he
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>> Luria
> > > > >>>>>>>> organized with Eisenstein). He read Volosinov. His work is
> > full
> > > of
> > > > >>>>>>>> references to Von Humboldt and Potebnia and even lesser
> known
> > > > >>>>>>>> lexicographers like Shakhmatov and Dal. It was from these
> > > > grammars that
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> Moscow linguistic circle led by Roman Jakobson took shape,
> and
> > > > then it
> > > > >>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>> a short step (by Jakobson) from Moscow to Prague, where the
> > > Prague
> > > > >>>>>>>> linguistic circle laid the foundations for Halliday and
> Hasan.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> But when I said that Ruqaiya's eyes would smoulder, I was
> > > > thinking of a
> > > > >>>>>>>> series of discussions  we had in Guangzhou about Saussure.
> She
> > > > was an
> > > > >>>>>>>> ardent defender of Saussure, and I was an equally strident
> > > > detractor.
> > > > >>>>> In
> > > > >>>>>>>> the course of the discussions, I came to see what she was
> > > getting
> > > > at:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Saussure turned his back on history and created an almost
> > purely
> > > > >>>>>>> structural
> > > > >>>>>>>> view of word meanings, and that was a terrible mistake. But
> > > > Saussure
> > > > >>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>> carrying on the Port-Royal tradition of NOT erecting a rigid
> > > > >>>>> impermeable
> > > > >>>>>>>> barrier between vocabulary and grammar. And as for
> Saussure's
> > > > notion of
> > > > >>>>>>>> "l'arbitraire", that is, the apparently random associations
> we
> > > > find
> > > > >>>>>>> between
> > > > >>>>>>>> phonemes and morphemes, the Saussurean idea which most
> > exercised
> > > > me at
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> time, Saussure simply meant "conventional"--that is, nothing
> > > more
> > > > than
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> kinds of relative differences that the Port-Royal
> grammarians
> > > > were able
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> describe precisely--precisely because they denied their
> > absolute
> > > > force.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Was Vygotsky an opponent of Saussure? In some places, he
> > > > explicitly
> > > > >>>>>>>> endorses the Saussurean "phoneme" (e.g. Chapter One of
> > Thinking
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>> Speech). But in other places, it's quite clear he's really
> > > talking
> > > > >>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>> morphemes (e.g. his discussion of Russian case endings in
> > > HDHMF).
> > > > In
> > > > >>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>> places, he has a Sapirean idea of vocabulary (once again,
> > > Chapter
> > > > One
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, although the passage on Sapir has been
> > cut
> > > > from
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> English translation). In others, he seems to have a
> Saussurean
> > > one
> > > > >>>>> (e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>> when he uses Piaget's test about calling a dog a "cow").
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I think that, like Ruqaiya, Vygotsky accepted Saussure's
> basic
> > > > model of
> > > > >>>>>>>> language, at least as a structure. What he rejected was the
> > > > associative
> > > > >>>>>>>> psychology that lay directly behind it. And like Ruqaiya, he
> > was
> > > > >>>>> working
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> put something much better--much more historical, and at the
> > same
> > > > time
> > > > >>>>>>> much
> > > > >>>>>>>> more functional and thus rationalist--in its place.
> Port-Royal
> > > > would
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>> approved.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> a)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Carol Macdonald <
> > > > >>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCA-ers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Now, I might have missed something here in the comments
> over
> > > the
> > > > past
> > > > >>>>> 24
> > > > >>>>>>>>> hours, but there weren't very good grammars around a
> century
> > > > ago, in
> > > > >>>>>>> fact
> > > > >>>>>>>>> there was only the Port Royal Grammar.  I long ago forgave
> > > > Vygotsky
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> focussing on word meaning only, on these grounds. (I am a
> > > > linguist,
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> why I was judgemental to start with.) He could not have
> had a
> > > > theory
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> use.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Whether he would have developed one later we can never
> know -
> > > but
> > > > >>>>>>> knowing
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the the sort of man he was, he would definitely have gotten
> > > > around to
> > > > >>>>>>> it,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and it would have been good.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be a good way to honour both  Ruqaiya
> > and
> > > > LSV to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> develop one.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Best
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2015 at 20:45, HENRY SHONERD <
> hshonerd@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I would be in over my head with verbal art, but I am sure
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>>>> right,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> David, that the topic is very important to understanding
> > > > Ruqaiya’s
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> contribution to understanding Vygotsky. On the other hand,
> > > > Ruqaiya
> > > > >>>>>>> seems
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> be making the case that Vygotsky lacks something very
> > > > important: a
> > > > >>>>>>> theory
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of grammar. That is where her passion and brilliance
> > > especially
> > > > seems
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> come out. And I agree with her about the need! So maybe
> it’s
> > > > not just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> something you and I take a great interest in, but
> > apparently a
> > > > gap
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> needs addressing. It wouldn’t be too far off the mark that
> > > this
> > > > very
> > > > >>>>>>> gap
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> why I got into the CHAT. I have been interested in this
> > since
> > > > Vera
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner, another passionate and brilliant Vygotskian,
> > > took
> > > > me
> > > > >>>>>>> under
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> her ample wings 30 years ago. At that time, I wondered if
> > > > cognitive
> > > > >>>>>>>>> grammar
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and Vygotsky were commensurable. Forgive my broken record
> on
> > > > this,
> > > > >>>>> but
> > > > >>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> think the potential is still there. I gather from what you
> > > have
> > > > said
> > > > >>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Halliday that, from a Vygotskian perspective, there are
> > > > problems with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive grammar (e.g. Langacker). Andy (2011) has
> written
> > > > about the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> lack
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a convincing notion of concept coming from cogntive
> > > > psychology
> > > > >>>>> (e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Rosch).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If I am wrong about cognitive grammar, a festschrift for
> > > > Ruqaiya that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> includes the “correction” of Vygotsky will help convince
> > me. I
> > > > don’t
> > > > >>>>>>> mean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> that such a festschrift would include mention of cognitive
> > > > grammar
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive psychology. Just saying.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Henry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. I love David’s description of Ruqaiya’s discourse
> > > “style”.
> > > > It
> > > > >>>>>>> brings
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> her alive. Such descriptions will certainly be part of the
> > > > >>>>> festschrift,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> whoever contributes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:08 AM, David Kellogg <
> > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I'm qualified to edit a special issue for
> > > > Ruqaiya,
> > > > >>>>>>> Henry.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not sure who is qualified, but I think it should be
> > somebody
> > > > whose
> > > > >>>>>>> main
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> relationship to the reviewers is not a collection of more
> > > than
> > > > ten
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rejections going back over a decade, varying from the
> > > > patronizing to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extremely vehement (in one case, my work was actually
> made
> > > the
> > > > stuff
> > > > >>>>>>>>> of a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate seminar by the reviewer, and dutifully reviled
> by
> > > all
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> participants!). I am sure there will be a
> Festschrift--but
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> probably be organized by her students and colleagues at
> > > > Macquarie
> > > > >>>>>>> (e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Annabelle Lukin, who is in the lecture).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I no longer have an academic position of any
> > kind.
> > > > So I
> > > > >>>>>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only thing I can usefully do at this point is what I
> always
> > > > do--just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of discussion and hope that somebody else who
> can
> > > > command
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respect of reviewers and/or publishers will do something
> > with
> > > > it.
> > > > >>>>> You
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> did
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ask about Ruqaiya's critique of Vygotsky and that was
> why I
> > > > posted
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> link
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to her exotropic theories article; that is the obvious
> > entry
> > > > point
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> most
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> people interested in Ruqaiya's relationship to Vygotsky.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> But I think a good discussion, and also a good
> Festscrhift,
> > > > should
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> inclusive. Many people on the list find grammar less
> > > > interesting
> > > > >>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and I do. That's why I suggested her work on fairy tales.
> > The
> > > > work
> > > > >>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> fairy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> tales, though, is not easy to understand; it's really
> just
> > an
> > > > >>>>> instance
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> much wider theory of Generalized Text Structure that
> > Ruqaiyah
> > > > was
> > > > >>>>>>>>> working
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> out in opposition to the Labov and Waletzky model of
> "OCER"
> > > > >>>>>>>>> (orientation,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> complication, evaluation, and resolution) which
> essentially
> > > > reduces
> > > > >>>>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> narratives to four panel cartoons. That was why I
> suggested
> > > Dr.
> > > > >>>>>>> Lukin's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lecture, which really does tell you something about how
> to
> > > read
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiyah was a wonderful, combative, and at the same time
> > > very
> > > > >>>>>>> charming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> interlocutor; her eyes would light up like twin bonfires
> > > while
> > > > you
> > > > >>>>>>> were
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speaking, and you knew that as soon as you paused for
> > breath
> > > > you
> > > > >>>>> were
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> going
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to get a blast that was going to open your eyes but maybe
> > > > singe your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> eyebrows a little too. But Ruqaiyah was a somewhat
> awkward
> > > > public
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> speaker:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> she interrupted herself a lot and like many people who do
> > SFL
> > > > she
> > > > >>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> always unsure where to start, where to stop, and how much
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> whole
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary before the various parts she wanted to talk
> about
> > > > would
> > > > >>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> sense. Dr. Lukin doesn't have that problem: she takes one
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>> Ruqaiyah's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> best articles, starts at the start, goes on until she
> comes
> > > to
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> end,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> then...
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that was the other thing about Ruqaiyah. She never
> > > really
> > > > >>>>>>>>> stopped;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think she just didn't know how, or maybe just didn't
> bother
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> practice.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, HENRY SHONERD <
> > > > hshonerd@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> David,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure I understand. The first link is for
> an
> > > > article
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connecting Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein  that goes
> > > > straight to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya’s “correction” of Vygotsky, right? The second
> link
> > > > seems to
> > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract for the text of the third link article, right?
> I
> > > > don’t see
> > > > >>>>>>>>> yet
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> connection between the article and the lecture, so I’m
> not
> > > > sure I
> > > > >>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> help
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there. Let’s just say I tackle the article. Can you tell
> > me
> > > > how my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> response
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might help you and Phil get started on the commemorative
> > > > >>>>> festschrift?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Henry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:54 PM, David Kellogg <
> > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just to say that I am happy to participate in a
> > > > >>>>>>> commemorative
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Festschrift for Ruqaiya--or maybe a commemorative
> special
> > > > issue,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> along
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lines of what was done for Leigh Star--in any way I
> can.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One way to start would be for Henry and for the list to
> > > read
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss--and respond to--THIS:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/HasanVygHallBernst.pdf
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Something else to think about: Ruqaiya came to Vygotsky
> > > more
> > > > or
> > > > >>>>> less
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> same way Vygotsky did, through the medium of verbal
> art.
> > So
> > > > >>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> thing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to consider is Ruqaiya's work on the structure of fairy
> > > > tales; by
> > > > >>>>>>> far
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> best thing done thereupon since Vygotsky's work on
> > fables.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/books/article/viewArticle/BOOK-29-752-1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't afford or have trouble reading the
> original,
> > > > there's
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lecture by Annabelle Lukin on Ruqaiya's theory of
> > > > generalized text
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> structure:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://vimeo.com/76491567
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:54 AM, mike cole <
> > mcole@ucsd.edu
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Henry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is -- who wishes to take responsibility for
> > > such a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> production.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil and David have spoken up. Hard to say.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing about self organizing systems is that the
> self
> > > is
> > > > not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> located
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one particular part
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them. THEY have to self organize.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know the old saying, where there is a will there
> is
> > a
> > > > way.
> > > > >>>>> Very
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optimistic in my view, but better than the total
> absence
> > > of
> > > > will
> > > > >>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time will tell.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> betcha
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:55 AM, HENRY SHONERD <
> > > > >>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened not only by Ruqaiya’s passing by also
> by
> > > how
> > > > >>>>> little
> > > > >>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> knew
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ruqaiya’s work. I hope to correct that now by
> > > reading
> > > > >>>>> more.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of what David points out that she adds to
> > > Vygotsky:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Grammar!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be a thousand things that Ruqaiya has contributed
> > to
> > > > >>>>> systemic
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional linguistics, but connecting it so
> explicitly
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to read more and hear more about. If there
> > is,
> > > > as
> > > > >>>>> Mike
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an MCA honoring of her work, I would very much like
> to
> > > see
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “foregrounded” (a term straight out of the Wikipedia
> > > > article on
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:29 AM, David Kellogg <
> > > > >>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Ruqaiya was the only person I ever met
> > who
> > > > set out
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correct" Vygotsky and actually succeeded: her
> insight
> > > > was that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, without a theory of grammar, was inevitably
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>> focus
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> too
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly on lexical meanings and their historical
> > > > derivations.
> > > > >>>>> As
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself pointed out, it's very hard to tell when
> > > > children's
> > > > >>>>> word
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. But Ruqaiya pointed out that it's very easy
> > to
> > > > tell
> > > > >>>>> when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wordings do.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to see her at the next ISFC in Germany
> > next
> > > > >>>>>>>>> month--I'll
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Phil Chappell <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> philchappell@mac.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many on this list will know of Ruqaiya Hasan's work
> > and
> > > > may
> > > > >>>>> even
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joined in an XMCA seminar we had back in the mid
> > > > noughties.
> > > > >>>>> She
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> was a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advocate of intersections between Vygotsky,
> Halliday,
> > > > >>>>> Bernstein
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sad to pass this message on.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Chappell
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear SFL Friends
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With great sadness I have to tell you that Ruqaiya
> > > > passed away
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suddenly
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday afternoon.  She suffered heart failure,
> > > > brought on
> > > > >>>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stress
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cancer and the infection, which had so
> > weakened
> > > > her
> > > > >>>>> body.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately Michael was with her at that moment,
> and
> > > for
> > > > some
> > > > >>>>>>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beforehand.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just spoken with Michael, and want to
> reassure
> > > > you that
> > > > >>>>>>> he
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in these circumstances - as courageous and
> > > > determined as
> > > > >>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be a small funeral service in Sydney
> next
> > > > week.
> > > > >>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date are still being arranged, and details will be
> > > > posted when
> > > > >>>>>>>>> they
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.  There will also be a much larger
> > scholarly
> > > > event
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruqaiya's life and work, and to keep it moving
> > forward,
> > > > later
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Macquarie University.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A wonderful life, an immense scholarly
> contribution,
> > an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> extraordinary
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friend to so many people around the world.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoff Williams
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All there is to thinking is seeing something
> noticeable
> > > > which
> > > > >>>>> makes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you
> > see
> > > > >>>>>>> something
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't even visible. N. McLean, *A River Runs
> > Through
> > > > it*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>



-- 
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