[Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change

[Carol Macdonald]

Just one of my quick, off the cuff comments:

I studied children's early language in the early 70s, and when I discovered
Vygotsky after 1978, and then in greater depth in the late 80s, I was so
impressed with him.  He said all the things that developmental
psycholinguists were saying, and more of course, and forty years earlier.
Stunning person/troika, they were.

So, yes, why would we not attribute a theory of mind to kids?  Vygotsky and
Piaget did. For starters. I read the Piaget/Chomsky debates, *but I think I
have said all this stuff on the listserv in the past*.

Carol

PS I am a vegan animal lover, but really don't understand how this came
into the conversation...

On 11 September 2015 at 11:50, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> I would avoid generalizations covering millions of people. I have been a
> vegetarian since 1973, when my father had a major heart attack in his 40s
> and I decided to avoid the diet that was in large part responsible. Over
> the last 42 years my reasons for maintaining this diet have shifted. For
> instance, I realized after quitting eating meat that, for the most part, I
> didn't like how it tasted. It's also better for the planet. Please try to
> keep essentializing large and diverse populations in this fashion. I don't
> insist on anything except my own food intake.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:16 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change
>
> Mike, Larry:
>
> Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about
> up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So
> some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at
> intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child,
> followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the
> synthesis.
>
> So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky
> knew--not just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we
> know today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the
> theoretically directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be
> theoretically misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in
> genetics, demonstrated).
>
> Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet
> empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot
> on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development.
> In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely
> what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions.
>
> Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other
> sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about
> it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the
> Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been
> introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot
> understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained
> somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually  secondary
> intersubjectivity that makes us inedible.
>
>  Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language
> acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our
> developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find
> them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to
> understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind,
> even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a
> theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could
> we ever have doubted that infants do?
>
> (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong
> obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.)
>
> David Kellogg
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > I hope these reflections continue on line.
> > The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of
> > *reciprocal felt rejoinders* that are not determined through
> > particular modes (vision, hearing, bodily touch). This seems important
> > to the notion of universal beliefs such as social smiling being
> > reciprocal mutual processes or are particular phenomena.
> > So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power
> > (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to
> > primary intersubjectivity.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > I read this as suggesting it is n
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "mike cole" <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: ‎2015-‎09-‎10 8:07 AM
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change
> >
> > Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow!
> > But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was
> > referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have
> > reviewed the literature on neonatal reflexes and their
> > transformations, so I checked a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb-
> > *Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (2015)*. There is an
> > interesting article there by Karen Adolph and a colleague on sensory
> motor development (ch5) that has a good summary.
> > Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with
> > emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside
> > and some version of a story about the increasing role cortical
> > structures following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months.
> > Particularly intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear
> > and then reappear as constituents of more complex forms of behavior.
> >
> > Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better
> > luck next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to
> > pursue this issue.
> >
> > Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a
> > more useful avenue of investigation? Not sure.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about
> > Vygotsky's
> > > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the
> > > temptation to
> > do
> > > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant
> > psychology--they
> > > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite
> wrong.
> > > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the
> > autopsy.
> > > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases
> > > were caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was
> > > cause by social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the
> > > nineteenth century
> > when
> > > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to
> > > parliament
> > and
> > > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a
> duel.
> > > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork
> > sausages,
> > > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a
> > choice.
> > > Bismarck declined.
> > >
> > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all
> > > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in
> > > the
> > brain
> > > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place
> > > there, but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the
> > > crucial "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the
> > > pallidum to the striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much
> > > explains how children
> > are
> > > able to sit up, and eventually walk.
> > >
> > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is
> > > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with
> > > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster,
> > > who
> > was
> > > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a
> > > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the
> > contagious
> > > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was
> > > traumatic bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the
> > > brilliant idea of
> > using
> > > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could
> > > talk
> > to
> > > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This
> > > allowed him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and
> > > that was eventually got him a job in the Kremlin.
> > >
> > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts
> > > with Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the
> > > problem of infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we
> > > enter the world and laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to
> > > treat the infant as essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very
> > > interested in re-establishing the role of the brain, although I
> > > rather doubt the theory, apparently
> > taken
> > > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that
> > > specific structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand
> > > their functions up to the cortex. It's clear to me that
> > > grammaticization takes place in
> > the
> > > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and
> > > it's
> > had a
> > > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid
> > > I
> > don't
> > > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got
> > > fired it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught).
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot.
> > > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg
> > > > <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter
> > > > > on
> > > > infancy
> > > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One.
> > > > >
> > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely
> > instinctive
> > > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is
> > > > > that
> > the
> > > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that
> > > > > exist (to
> > > do
> > > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or
> > > > > even
> > > > purely
> > > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an
> > > > > undeveloped
> > > > cortex.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The
> > > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set
> > > > of reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in
> > > > the
> > species
> > > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been
> > > > known
> > > that
> > > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no
> > > cortex.*
> > > >
> > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of
> > > > the infant's life world and biological consiitution which has,
> > > > until recent research of the sort in the social smiling case, has
> > > > used qualitatve
> > > change
> > > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the
> > beginning
> > > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest
> > > > in the world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in
> > > > populations I
> > > know
> > > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest"
> > > > seems
> > > to
> > > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in
> > LSV's
> > > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just
> > > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*​
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that
> > > > > social
> > > > smiling
> > > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from
> > > infancy.
> > > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest
> > > > > in
> > the
> > > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy
> > > > > (what Halliday calls proto-conversation).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and
> > > > other
> > > > cases​*
> > > >
> > > > *​when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of
> > > > behavior
> > > that
> > > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in
> > > > the European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I
> > > > do not
> > > recall
> > > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker
> > > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to
> > know.*
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the
> > > > > different
> > > forms
> > > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method
> > > > > Andy
> > calls
> > > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and
> > > > > finds it doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts
> > > > > Buhler's three level scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler
> > > > > over-extends it to cover both humans
> > > and
> > > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain
> > > volition
> > > > at
> > > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy
> > > chapter,
> > > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior
> > > (instinct,
> > > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in
> > > > > the
> > form
> > > of
> > > > > affect.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity
> > > > could
> > be
> > > > helpful because it is all about affect.*​
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out
> > > > > that
> > each
> > > of
> > > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > as
> > > > > ​
> > > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in
> > > > > my
> > > scheme
> > > > > ​
> > > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which ​c​
> > > > > orresponds to the ​ stable period).
> > > > >
> > > > >                               CRISIS                  STABLE PERIOD
> > > > >
> > > > > newborn                 protoconversation
> > > > >
> > > > > infancy
>  conversation
> > > > proper
> > > > >
> > > > > one                        protolanguage
> > > > >
> > > > > early childhood                                      language
> proper
> > > > >
> > > > > crisis at three         protonarrative/dialog
> > > > >
> > > > > preschool                                              narrative
> and
> > > > > dialogue proper
> > > > >
> > > > > crisis at seven       protodiscourse
> > > > >                             (academic wording)
> > > > >
> > > > > school age                                            discourse
> > proper
> > > > >
> > > > > crisis at 13             prototurn taking
> > > > >                            (grammatical metaphor,
> > > > >                              variation, register,
> > > > >                              social dialect)
> > > > > puberty
>  turn-taking
> > > > > proper
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > ​---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up
> > > > with
> > > LSV?*
> > > > *If so,*
> > > > *1.  a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn
> > > > to
> > > infancy
> > > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might
> > > > want
> > to
> > > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy.
> > > > Protoconversations
> > in
> > > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their
> > culture
> > > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint
> > > mediated,
> > > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). *
> > > >
> > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I
> > assume
> > > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am
> > > > uncertain
> > about
> > > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. *
> > > >
> > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all
> > > > you
> > > have
> > > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of
> > change.
> > > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he
> > > > does not single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition
> > > > for special
> > > notice.
> > > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it
> > > > is
> > in a
> > > > different dialect.*
> > > > ​
> > > >
> > > > ​Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article?
> > > >
> > > > mike​
> > > >
> > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality.
> > > > In
> > Modes
> > > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E.
> > > > > Saltzman
> > > Eds),
> > > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected
> > Works
> > > of
> > > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143).
> > > > >
> > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin
> > > > > <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila!
> > > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at
> > > > > > Barbara
> > > Means'
> > > > > > baby reports.
> > > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are
> > reversible
> > > > --
> > > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing
> > > > > > the
> > > > stroller
> > > > > or
> > > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the
> > > > > > pusher
> > > > sees?
> > > > > >  Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within
> > > > > > one
> > wider
> > > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts
> > > > > > on developments like smiling?
> > > > > > Peg
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:
> > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
> > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+Of
> > > mike
> > > > > > cole
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM
> > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage
> > > David's
> > > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage
> > > > > > margins is
> > > at
> > > > 3
> > > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence
> > > > > > a
> > > stage
> > > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about
> > > > > > it in
> > > > just
> > > > > > this way in our textbook).
> > > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence
> > showing
> > > > the
> > > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that
> > > > > > underpinned the developmental literature for several decades.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well
> > > > > > worked
> > > > out,
> > > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this
> > > > > > work
> > > could
> > > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that
> > Martin
> > > > and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > wrote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The
> > > > > > latter
> > > > having
> > > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new,
> > relevant,
> > > > > > context.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science
> > > > > > with
> > an
> > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
> > > > an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >
>
>


-- 
Carol A  Macdonald PhD (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa

Behind every gifted woman there is often a remarkable cat.