[Xmca-l] Re: The Complementarity of Vygotsky and Halliday

Tue Apr 17 17:43:16 PDT 2018

I have a slightly different problem, Mike (and of course Brian Jones, the
guardian angel of xmca, hovering silently in the background). I figured out
the problem just as Alfredo did and reached the place to register. I even
got an email asking me to confirm my submission. But it doesn't recognize
the administrative string that I send to confirm, either by email or at the
site.

Anyway, voila, here's what I wanted to say (because I am teaching it in
phonology class today, as review for the midterm). In phonetics,
"complementary distribution" means that the two sounds are NOT
interchangeable: for example, you always find the "dark", syllabic
consonant /l/ at the end of the word "little" and you never find it at the
beginning. The distribution of "dark l" and "light l" is called
complementary, because it's like Clark Kent and Superman, they are one and
the same entity and as a result you never find them in the same
environment, You always find the "light" nonsyllabic consonant /l/ at the
beginning of the word "little" and you never find it at the end.

So one way to talk about the complementarity of Vygotsky and Halliday is to
say that they have basically the same identity (a Marxist theoretical
background, a monist, holistic methodology, a cultural historical approach,
a semantic, "already socialized" view of consciousness but "personality as
individualized brain". But like some closeted straight guy who starts
frequenting gay bars, they are found in different environments, viz. the
study of thinking on the one hand and the study of speech on the other.
This is, actually, what Professor Wells proposes in his article.

But another way to talk about this complementarity is messier. You see, in
phonetics, "overlapping distribution" means that two sounds ARE
interchangeable, but if you DO interchange them, you get a change in
meaning. So for example if you interchange the /t/ sound and the /l/ sound
in the word 'little" you come up with "tillet", which isn't exactly a word,
but sounds vaguely like a name, or maybe a mispronunciation of "tilt" or
"tilled" or (if you are Korean or Japanese or Chinese) "turret". These are
differences in meaning. The distribution of /t/ and /l/ is called
overlapping because you DO find the two sounds in the same environment--at
the beginning of a syllable ("Ted" and "led"), in the middle ("betting" and
"belling" and at the end ("sit" and "sill").

So another way to talk about LSV and MAKH is to say that when you change
your point of view, you do get a change in meaning. For example, LSV treats
the development of child language as essentially crisis-ridden. MAKH never
speaks of crises, although his way of modeling language as systems might
imply them. MAKH on the other hand treats context as something that is
language-generated, while LSV never talks like this, although his way of
modeling the social situation of development as a relationship between the
child and the environment might be considered compatible with this
view--but not exactly complementary.

This latter way seems more likely to me. I think one of the things that LSV
and MAKH have in common is that they would both reject the idea that the
study of consciousness and the study of language belong to entirely
different sciences, and they would equally reject any attempt to divide
that science from its practical applications. For that very reason, they
both have a rather "fuzzy" sense of what meaning is--they both think that
meaning kind of penumbral--bright and illuminating in the middle but
infinitely extendable and therefore not definite around the edges.

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

Recent Article in *Early Years*

The question of questions: Hasan’s critiques, Vygotsky’s crises, and the
child’s first interrogatives
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09575146.2018.1431874>

Free e-print available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/6EeWMigjFARavQjDJjcW/full

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:43 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for re-posting, Alfredo.
> Sorry about the broken link.
>
> I look forward to an educational experience!
>
> mike
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > The link for subscribing to the MAKH discussion/symposium in Mike's
> e-mail
> > is broken in two lines. In case this creates difficulties to use it, I
> copy
> > it below in one line :
> >
> > https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xlsv-makh-l
> >
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: 17 April 2018 19:38
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l]  The Complementarity of Vygotsky and Halliday
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >
> >
> > Even before the death of Michael Halliday, I have been beginning to
> > organize a discussion on the joint work of Vygotsky and Halliday. In this
> > case I am acting
> >
> > in my capacity as "special project" editor of *MCA*. I would like to
> create
> > either a seminar or perhaps a special issue, of MCA on the topic of the
> > complementarity of Vygotsky and Halliday. It is a project that is the
> > personal concern of several members of xmca, and beyond who share a
> common
> > interest in the study of langugage, culture, mind and development.
> >
> >
> >
> > The question is, how to organize such a "joint project" symposium? I do
> not
> > think
> >
> > it was to expect it to happen on xmca. There are too many topics there,
> and
> > not everyone will be interested. And if everyone is interested we are
> still
> > likely to wander off on anoth interesting, related, topics, chaining our
> > way through time.
> >
> > But this time we need a product. This product, of course, may contain
> > essays
> >
> > that argue that there is no such complementarity, and those too, would be
> > welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> > To enable creation of such a product, based upon the materials turned up,
> > discussed, and created in the discussion, Bruce has kindly set up for us
> a
> > new
> >
> > discussion list called xlsv-makh. The process of signining up begins with
> > the url given by Bruce below. We are asking people to subscribe in a way
> > that will allow
> >
> > us to keep out bots and provide an archive of the discussion including
> the
> > common study materials collected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce explains it this way.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Just tell people to go to https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailm
> > an/listinfo/xlsv-makh-l and follow the instructions for subscribing.
> >
> > Unsubscribing will be on the same web page.
> >
> >
> >
> > *NOTE: The https:// is a link for anyone whose file has lost the blue
> > color
> > of a live linke*
> >
> >
> >
> > I have signed up. Everyone is welcome. Please post to whatever lists you
> >
> > on that you think relevant, such as the AERA sig, ISCAR, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > As a kind of introduction to the idea of the complementarity LSV and
> MAKH I
> > am attaching a paper by Gordon Wells. Its sore of a candidate for
> starting
> > discussion. Those uncertain of whether to sign up or not might check out
> > the paper to see if you are interested.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Cole
> >
>