[Xmca-l] Re: language and music
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 2 05:23:50 PST 2018
Oh Thanks for that explanation, David! Now I don't have to
bow before mathematical linguists every time I do a search.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 2/12/2018 8:40 pm, David Kellogg wrote:
> Andy--
>
> Actually, Google Translate is, as far as I can tell, an
> even bigger problem for Chomsky than the human genome
> project. Chomsky posits a universal grammar, based on
> abstract principles hardwired into the human brain.
> Chomsky also posits a modular syntax and a modular
> vocabulary (words and rules) both of which are separate
> from the semantics module (thought). This is taken to be
> the real, biological basis of language in the
> mind/brain. You would expect, therefore, that any machine
> translation that approximates the output of a human
> translation would be basd on similar universal grammar
> principles and similar modular structure.
>
> During the sixties many attempts were made to produce a
> sentence generator and a sentence parser along these
> lines. Eventually Christian Matthiessen and others, with
> help from Halliday, did succeed in producing a good
> sentence generator (called NIGEL after Halliday's son)
> using principles abstracted from human language. But of
> course Halliday denies both the existence of a universal
> grammar and the modular construction of mind, as well as
> rejecting the distinction between deep and surface
> structure upon which transformational theory then rested.
>
> Google Translate is really the equivalent of a medieval
> automaton and not a robot. It has huge data bases of
> extant translated texts which have already been produced
> by human translators (including yours truly). If you type
> in a string in a source language, it will try to find the
> largest possible string in its data base of texts in that
> source language and then give you the equivalent string in
> the data base of translated texts in the target language
> you want. That's all.
>
> This is why it works will with languages that have already
> been well-translated by human beings (e.g. French
> and Spanish) and much less well with less translated
> languages (e.g. Korean). With the non-translated
> languages, it hardly works at all, since it will have to
> go through some other language..It is also why you can
> game Google Translate quite easily if you use it (as we
> do) to translate Vygotsky: you just change the translation
> for Vygotsky they give you and push the button which
> Google gives you that says that they can add your
> translation to their data base. You will soon find that
> subsequent translations of that phrase or some similar
> phrase will give you back the translation which you offered.
>
> Google Translate is really a form of crowd sourcing; the
> product they are selling you is your own God-given
> sociality and your own shared labour. I'm not saying
> that's bad; I just saying it's not Chomsky.
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li:
>
> When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan
> idiom … and maths in the grandmother tongue
>
> Some free e-prints available at:
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 9:28 AM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg:
> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or
> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about
> such things as psychological functioning" and
> therefore, it seems to me, little interest in what
> people do as well as what they think. In other words,
> the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean
> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the
> babbling of a brook or the babbling of a band of
> monkeys can be formally analysed with the same set of
> concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in
> conversation. But this is purely formal, superficial
> and obscures what is expressed and transacted in the
> human babble.
>
> I can understand the fascination in such formal
> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can be a
> tool of analysis, and often insights come out from
> such formal disciplines relevant to the real world
> (mathematics being the supreme example), but ....! One
> really has to keep in mind that words are not Peircean
> signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans
> alone have language by saying that everything has
> language, even inanimate processes (and this is how I
> interpret the equation of language with Peircean
> signs), is somewhat more than missing the point.
>
> As an example of how such formal processes lead to
> grave errors is the Language Acquisition Device
> "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis of
> language. And yet to hold that an actual biological,
> neuronal formation as a LAD exists in all human beings
> in quite inconsistent with the foundations of biology,
> i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky,
> but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem
> with this formal analysis, even though I gasp in
> wonder every time Google manages to correctly parse an
> ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very
> relevant answers.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group
>> for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned previously
>> (the proliferation of technical languages in
>> different fields and the time-intensive labor of
>> translating terms/meanings of entire systems of
>> thinking from one of these fields to the next). Add
>> the fact that there are few who have much interest in
>> one of the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp.
>> how ling anthro has taken up Peicean semiotics - a
>> tangle of words in its own right), and this means the
>> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at
>> all because of anyone's ill intentions but simply
>> because this is an impossible situation for anyone to
>> commit to learning an entirely new language for
>> talking about language!).]
>>
>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would
>> point to (!) the indexical and iconic potentials of
>> SPOKEN language while noting that this flattens the
>> oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken
>> word? Our dominant ideology of language tends to
>> assume that spoken language is (only?) symbolic and
>> gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion
>> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way
>> into seeing how spoken language is also indexical and
>> iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed them out
>> of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses
>> onomatopoeia (iconic) and "shifters" (indexical) as
>> irrelevant to his project).
>>
>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of
>> the first to point to the problem of this dominant
>> ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein has
>> made a rather substantial career off of this simple
>> point, first elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on
>> "shifters" and since then in numerous other works.
>> Many others working in linguistic anthropology have
>> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by
>> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of spoken
>> language in the concepts of "indexicality" and
>> "iconization". More recently linguistic
>> anthropologists have considered the processes by
>> which sign-functions can shift from one function to
>> another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or
>> symbolic to iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's
>> work), and iconization - from symbolic or iconic to
>> indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work).
>> And others have looked at more basic features of
>> sign-functioning such as the realization of qualia
>> (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special
>> issue in Anthro theory).
>>
>> The relevance of all this for the present list serve
>> is that the processes being described by these
>> linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to
>> understanding human psychological functioning and yet
>> most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic or
>> otherwise, don't have much interest in talking about
>> such things as psychological functioning (one
>> exception here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book
>> Person, Agent, Subject, Self - although beware that
>> his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I
>> suspect that this could be a particularly productive
>> intersection for development.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -greg
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD
>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Right on, James!
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma
>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to
>>> be exploratory and free style, allowing for the
>>> coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When
>>> it comes to scholarly writing, we know we will
>>> switch the code.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于 2018年11月29日周四
>>> 18:58写道：
>>>
>>> James,
>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I
>>> don’t want to let go of it, so I hope I am
>>> not tiring you or others with all the
>>> connections I find. But, in the spirit of
>>> Alfredo’s post, I’ll just keep on talking
>>> and remark on how the duck tail hair cut is
>>> a rich gesture, an important concept in this
>>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of
>>> communication present in many species.
>>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a
>>> rudimentary form of language with
>>> evolutionary results in human language.
>>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the
>>> business of quotes in the subject line now
>>> taking place (Anna Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly
>>> Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on
>>> the last chapter of Vygotsky’s Speech and
>>> Language as an issue of gesture. Language,
>>> written language in this case, is limited in
>>> its ability to provide nuance. Writing
>>> without quotes “gestured”, pointed to to
>>> author sources familar in the day that
>>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not
>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at
>>> Univ of Calf, wrote that two charges of
>>> language where in “tension”: 1) make
>>> yourself clear and 2) get it said before
>>> losing the thread of thinking and talking.
>>> Gesture, I would like to argue, is an aspect
>>> of discourse that helps to address this
>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture,
>>> with temporal constraints that belie the
>>> idea that a single turn can ever be totally
>>> clear in and of itself. Writing, as we are
>>> doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole
>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on
>>> posting our turns.
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma
>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for
>>>> this subject line!
>>>>
>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily
>>>> enough, it is what my brother
>>>> would always like his 9-year-old son to
>>>> have because he has much thicker hair than
>>>> most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy
>>>> had a one-day show off in the classroom and
>>>> was ticked off by the school authority (in
>>>> China). However, my brother has managed to
>>>> restore the ducktail twice a year
>>>> during the boy's long school holiday in
>>>> winter and summer!
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are
>>>> predictable due to participants'
>>>> intersubjective awareness of the subject.
>>>> Yet, the nuances of conversation (just like
>>>> each individual's ducktail unique to
>>>> himself) are unpredictable because of the
>>>> waywardness of our mind. What's more,
>>>> such nuances create the fluidity of
>>>> conversation which makes it difficult (or
>>>> even unnecessary) to predict what comes
>>>> next - this is perhaps the whole point that
>>>> keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed
>>>> out earlier.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD
>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the
>>>> mandarin drake reminded me of a hair
>>>> style popularin the late 50s when I was
>>>> in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail
>>>> haircuts images
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ducktail+haircuts+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
>>>> One of the photos in the link is of
>>>> Elvis Presley, an alpha male high
>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note
>>>> that some of the photos are of women,
>>>> interesting in light of issues of
>>>> gender fluidity these days. I don’t
>>>> remember when women started taking on
>>>> the hair style. Since I mentioned Elvis
>>>> Presley, this post counts as relevant
>>>> to the subject line! Ha!
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma
>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Henry.
>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought
>>>>> you might like to see:
>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck
>>>>>
>>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于
>>>>> 2018年11月27日周二 19:30写道：
>>>>>
>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and
>>>>> providing it is a move on this
>>>>> subject line that instantiates
>>>>> nicely Gee’s conception of
>>>>> discourse. Thanks for your
>>>>> thoughtful and helpful response.
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM,
>>>>>> James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on
>>>>>> Derek Bickerton. One of the
>>>>>> interesting things is his
>>>>>> conception of displacement as the
>>>>>> hallmark of language, whether
>>>>>> iconic, indexical or symbolic. In
>>>>>> the case of Chinese language, the
>>>>>> sounds are decontextualised or
>>>>>> sublimated over time to become
>>>>>> something more integrated into
>>>>>> the words themselves as
>>>>>> ideographs. Some of Bickerton's
>>>>>> ideas are suggestive of the study
>>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a priori
>>>>>> /process, involving scrupulous
>>>>>> deduction. This reminds me of
>>>>>> methods used in diachronic
>>>>>> linguistics, which I felt are
>>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as
>>>>>> those used in synchronic linguistics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and
>>>>>> "intramental", I can see your
>>>>>> point. In fact I don't take
>>>>>> Vygotsky's "interpsychological"
>>>>>> and "intrapsychological"
>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or
>>>>>> binary opposites. Whenever it
>>>>>> comes to their relationship, I
>>>>>> tend to have a post-structuralism
>>>>>> imagery present in my mind,
>>>>>> particularly related to a
>>>>>> Derridean stance for the
>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any idea
>>>>>> is not entirely distinct from
>>>>>> other ideas in terms of the
>>>>>> "thing itself"; rather, it
>>>>>> entails a supplement of the other
>>>>>> idea which is already embedded in
>>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two
>>>>>> categoriesare relational
>>>>>> (dialectical); they are somehow
>>>>>> like a pair of mandarin ducks
>>>>>> (see attached image). I also like
>>>>>> to think that each of these
>>>>>> categories is both
>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and
>>>>>> "context-for-discourse" (here
>>>>>> discourse is in tune with James
>>>>>> Gee's conception of discourse as
>>>>>> a patchwork of actions,
>>>>>> interactions, thoughts, feelings
>>>>>> etc). I recall Barbara Rogoff
>>>>>> talking about there being no
>>>>>> boundary between the external and
>>>>>> the internal or the boundary
>>>>>> being blurred (during her
>>>>>> seminar in the Graduate School of
>>>>>> Education at Bristol in 2001
>>>>>> while I was doing my PhD).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14,
>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James,
>>>>>> I think it was Derek
>>>>>> Bickerton
>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton)
>>>>>> who argued that “formal
>>>>>> syntax” developed from
>>>>>> stringing together turns in
>>>>>> verbal interaction. The wiki
>>>>>> on Bickerton I have linked is
>>>>>> short and raises issues
>>>>>> discussed in this subject
>>>>>> line and in the subject line
>>>>>> on Corballis. Bickerton
>>>>>> brings me back to the
>>>>>> circularity of discourse and
>>>>>> the development of discourse
>>>>>> competence. Usage-based
>>>>>> grammar. Bickerton’s idea
>>>>>> that complex grammar
>>>>>> developed out of the pidgins
>>>>>> of our ancestors is
>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a
>>>>>> chicken/egg problem that for
>>>>>> Vygotsky, “…the intramental
>>>>>> forms of semiotic mediation
>>>>>> is better understood by
>>>>>> examining the types of
>>>>>> intermental processes”? I
>>>>>> don’t know. Could one say
>>>>>> that inner speech is the
>>>>>> vehicle for turning discourse
>>>>>> into grammar? Bickerton
>>>>>> claimed a strong biological
>>>>>> component to human language,
>>>>>> though I don’t remember if he
>>>>>> was a Chomskian. I hope this
>>>>>> is coherent thinking in the
>>>>>> context of our conversation.
>>>>>> All that jazz.
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM,
>>>>>>> James Ma
>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg
>>>>>>> - intersubjectivity is
>>>>>>> relevant and pertinent here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I see it,
>>>>>>> intersubjectivity transcends
>>>>>>> "outlines" or perhaps
>>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness"
>>>>>>> and "unpredictability" of a
>>>>>>> conversation (as in
>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue) into
>>>>>>> what Rommetveit termed the
>>>>>>> "draft of a contract". This
>>>>>>> is because shared
>>>>>>> understanding makes explicit
>>>>>>> and external what would
>>>>>>> otherwise remain implicit
>>>>>>> and internal. Rommetveit
>>>>>>> argues that private worlds
>>>>>>> can only be transcended up
>>>>>>> to a certain level and
>>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree
>>>>>>> upon the draft of a contract
>>>>>>> with which the communication
>>>>>>> can be initiated. In the
>>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he uses
>>>>>>> a "pluralistic" and
>>>>>>> "social-cognitive" approach
>>>>>>> to human communication - and
>>>>>>> especially to the problem of
>>>>>>> linguistic mediation and
>>>>>>> regulation in
>>>>>>> interpsychological
>>>>>>> functioning, with reference
>>>>>>> to semantics, syntactics and
>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him,
>>>>>>> the intramental forms of
>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is better
>>>>>>> understood by examining the
>>>>>>> types of intermental processes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think these intermental
>>>>>>> processes (just like
>>>>>>> intramental ones) can be
>>>>>>> boiled down or distilled to
>>>>>>> signs and symbols with which
>>>>>>> interlocutors are in harmony
>>>>>>> during a conversation or any
>>>>>>> other joint activities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent
>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at
>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>>>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no
>>>>>>> directors and symphonic
>>>>>>> potential of
>>>>>>> conversation reminded
>>>>>>> me of G. Bateson's
>>>>>>> metalogue "why do things
>>>>>>> have outlines"
>>>>>>> (attached). Implicitly,
>>>>>>> it raises the question
>>>>>>> of units and elements,
>>>>>>> of how a song, a
>>>>>>> dance, a poem, a
>>>>>>> conversation, to make
>>>>>>> sense, they must have a
>>>>>>> recognizable outline,
>>>>>>> even in improvisation;
>>>>>>> they must be wholes, or
>>>>>>> suggest wholes. That
>>>>>>> makes them
>>>>>>> "predictable". And yet,
>>>>>>> when you are immersed in
>>>>>>> a conversation, the fact
>>>>>>> that you can
>>>>>>> never exactly predict
>>>>>>> what comes next is the
>>>>>>> whole point that keep
>>>>>>> us talking, dancing,
>>>>>>> drawing, etc!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *From:*
>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>> on behalf of HENRY
>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018
>>>>>>> 06:22
>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind,
>>>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>>> language and music
>>>>>>> I’d like to add to the
>>>>>>> call and response
>>>>>>> conversation that
>>>>>>> discourse, this
>>>>>>> conversation itself, is
>>>>>>> staged. There are
>>>>>>> performers and and an
>>>>>>> audience made up partly
>>>>>>> of performers
>>>>>>> themselves. How many are
>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am
>>>>>>> usually? This
>>>>>>> conversation has no
>>>>>>> director, but there are
>>>>>>> leaders. There is
>>>>>>> symphonic potential. And
>>>>>>> even gestural potential,
>>>>>>> making the chat a dance.
>>>>>>> All on line.:)
>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at
>>>>>>>> 9:05 PM, mike cole
>>>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For many years I used
>>>>>>>> the work of Ellen
>>>>>>>> Dissenyake to teach
>>>>>>>> comm classes about
>>>>>>>> language/music/development.
>>>>>>>> She is quite unusual in
>>>>>>>> ways that might find
>>>>>>>> interest here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at
>>>>>>>> 2:16 PM James Ma
>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms,
>>>>>>>> whatever each of
>>>>>>>> the participants
>>>>>>>> has constructed
>>>>>>>> internally is the
>>>>>>>> signified, i.e. his
>>>>>>>> or her
>>>>>>>> understanding and
>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>> When it is
>>>>>>>> vocalised (spoken
>>>>>>>> out), it becomes
>>>>>>>> the signifier to
>>>>>>>> the listener.
>>>>>>>> What's more, when
>>>>>>>> the participants
>>>>>>>> work together to
>>>>>>>> compose a story
>>>>>>>> impromptu, each of
>>>>>>>> their signifiers
>>>>>>>> turns into a new
>>>>>>>> signified – a
>>>>>>>> shared,
>>>>>>>> newly-established
>>>>>>>> understanding,
>>>>>>>> woven into the
>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning
>>>>>>>> making.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, in
>>>>>>>> Chinese language,
>>>>>>>> words for singing
>>>>>>>> and dancing have
>>>>>>>> long been used
>>>>>>>> inseparably. As I
>>>>>>>> see it, they are
>>>>>>>> semiotically
>>>>>>>> indexed to, or
>>>>>>>> adjusted to allow
>>>>>>>> for, the feelings,
>>>>>>>> emotions, actions
>>>>>>>> and interactions of
>>>>>>>> a consciousness who
>>>>>>>> is experiencing the
>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>> dancing. Here are
>>>>>>>> some idioms:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 酣歌醉舞- singing and
>>>>>>>> dancing rapturously
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 村歌社舞-
>>>>>>>> dancingvillage and
>>>>>>>> singing club
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 燕歌赵舞- citizens of
>>>>>>>> ancient Yan and
>>>>>>>> Zhao good at
>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>> dancing, hence
>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>> wonderful songs and
>>>>>>>> dances
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 舞榭歌楼- a church or
>>>>>>>> building set up for
>>>>>>>> singing and dancing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*James Ma
>>>>>>>> *Independent
>>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018
>>>>>>>> at 19:08, Simangele
>>>>>>>> Mayisela
>>>>>>>> <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za
>>>>>>>> <mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> conversation is
>>>>>>>> getting even
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> interesting,
>>>>>>>> not that I have
>>>>>>>> an informed
>>>>>>>> answer for you
>>>>>>>> Rob, I can only
>>>>>>>> think of the
>>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>>> Anthems where
>>>>>>>> people stand
>>>>>>>> still when
>>>>>>>> singing, even
>>>>>>>> then this is
>>>>>>>> observed only
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> international
>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other occasions
>>>>>>>> when people are
>>>>>>>> likely not to
>>>>>>>> move when
>>>>>>>> singing when
>>>>>>>> there is death
>>>>>>>> and the mood is
>>>>>>>> sombre.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>> rhythmic body
>>>>>>>> movement,
>>>>>>>> called dance
>>>>>>>> are a norm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This then makes
>>>>>>>> me wonder what
>>>>>>>> this means in
>>>>>>>> terms of
>>>>>>>> cognitive
>>>>>>>> functioning, in
>>>>>>>> the light of
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky’s
>>>>>>>> developmental
>>>>>>>> stages – of
>>>>>>>> language and
>>>>>>>> thought. Would
>>>>>>>> the body
>>>>>>>> movement
>>>>>>>> constitute the
>>>>>>>> externalisation
>>>>>>>> of the thoughts
>>>>>>>> contained in
>>>>>>>> the music?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Helena – the
>>>>>>>> video you are
>>>>>>>> relating about
>>>>>>>> reminds of the
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> teaching or
>>>>>>>> group therapy
>>>>>>>> technique-
>>>>>>>> where a group
>>>>>>>> of learners (or
>>>>>>>> participants in
>>>>>>>> OD settings)
>>>>>>>> are instructed
>>>>>>>> to tell a
>>>>>>>> single coherent
>>>>>>>> and logical
>>>>>>>> story as a
>>>>>>>> group. They all
>>>>>>>> take turns to
>>>>>>>> say a sentence,
>>>>>>>> a sentence of
>>>>>>>> not more than 6
>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>> (depending on
>>>>>>>> the instructor
>>>>>>>> ), each time
>>>>>>>> linking your
>>>>>>>> sentence to the
>>>>>>>> sentence of
>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>> articulator,
>>>>>>>> with the next
>>>>>>>> person also
>>>>>>>> doing the same,
>>>>>>>> until the story
>>>>>>>> sounds complete
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>> More important
>>>>>>>> is that they
>>>>>>>> compose this
>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>> impromptu, It
>>>>>>>> with such
>>>>>>>> stories that
>>>>>>>> group dynamics
>>>>>>>> are analysed,
>>>>>>>> and in group
>>>>>>>> therapy cases,
>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>> experiences of
>>>>>>>> trauma are
>>>>>>>> shared. I
>>>>>>>> suppose this is
>>>>>>>> an example of
>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>> although
>>>>>>>> previously I
>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>> thought of it
>>>>>>>> as just an
>>>>>>>> “activity”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk
>>>>>>>> <mailto:robsub@ariadne.org.uk>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday,
>>>>>>>> 16 November
>>>>>>>> 2018 21:01
>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended
>>>>>>>> Mind, Culture,
>>>>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>;
>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>>>>>> <helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*
>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>>>> Michael C.
>>>>>>>> Corballis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember
>>>>>>>> being told once
>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>> languages do
>>>>>>>> not have
>>>>>>>> separate words
>>>>>>>> for singing and
>>>>>>>> dancing,
>>>>>>>> because if you
>>>>>>>> sing you want
>>>>>>>> to move - until
>>>>>>>> western
>>>>>>>> civilisation
>>>>>>>> beats it out of
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anybody
>>>>>>>> know if this is
>>>>>>>> actually true,
>>>>>>>> or is it
>>>>>>>> complete cod?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is true,
>>>>>>>> does it have
>>>>>>>> something to
>>>>>>>> say about the
>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>> physical body
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> development of
>>>>>>>> speech?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>> 17:29, Helena
>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am very
>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>> in where
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>> is going. I
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> being in a
>>>>>>>> Theories of
>>>>>>>> Literacy
>>>>>>>> class in
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> Glynda
>>>>>>>> Hull, the
>>>>>>>> instructor,
>>>>>>>> showed a
>>>>>>>> video of a
>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>> circle
>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> Amazon,
>>>>>>>> where an
>>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>> pattern of
>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>> phrases
>>>>>>>> wove in and
>>>>>>>> out among
>>>>>>>> the singers
>>>>>>>> underlaid
>>>>>>>> by drumming
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>> call and
>>>>>>>> response,
>>>>>>>> you name
>>>>>>>> it. Maybe
>>>>>>>> 20 people
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> involved,
>>>>>>>> all pushing
>>>>>>>> full steam
>>>>>>>> ahead to
>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>> that they
>>>>>>>> all seemed
>>>>>>>> to know
>>>>>>>> about but
>>>>>>>> wouldn’t
>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>> until they
>>>>>>>> did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly
>>>>>>>> someone has
>>>>>>>> studied the
>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>> of musical
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> (improvised
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> otherwise),
>>>>>>>> speech and
>>>>>>>> gesture? I
>>>>>>>> have asked
>>>>>>>> musicians
>>>>>>>> about this
>>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>>> blank
>>>>>>>> looks. Yet
>>>>>>>> clearly you
>>>>>>>> can tell
>>>>>>>> when you
>>>>>>>> listen to
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> kinds of
>>>>>>>> music, not
>>>>>>>> just Amazon
>>>>>>>> drum and
>>>>>>>> chant
>>>>>>>> circles,
>>>>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>> is some
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>> speech -
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>> embedded
>>>>>>>> there. The
>>>>>>>> Sonata form
>>>>>>>> is clearly
>>>>>>>> involves
>>>>>>>> exposition
>>>>>>>> (they even
>>>>>>>> use that
>>>>>>>> word).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> soundtrack
>>>>>>>> to the Coen
>>>>>>>> Brothers’
>>>>>>>> film Fargo
>>>>>>>> opens with
>>>>>>>> a musical
>>>>>>>> theme that
>>>>>>>> says, as
>>>>>>>> clearly as
>>>>>>>> if we were
>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>> aloud from
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> children’s
>>>>>>>> book, “I am
>>>>>>>> now going
>>>>>>>> to tell you
>>>>>>>> a very
>>>>>>>> strange
>>>>>>>> story that
>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>> promise you
>>>>>>>> every word
>>>>>>>> of it is
>>>>>>>> true…da-de-da-de-da.’
>>>>>>>> Only it
>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>> take that
>>>>>>>> many words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo
>>>>>>>> (1996) -
>>>>>>>> 'Fargo,
>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>> Dakota'
>>>>>>>> (Opening)
>>>>>>>> scene
>>>>>>>> [1080] -
>>>>>>>> YouTube
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Berkeley,
>>>>>>>> CA 94707
>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blog US/
>>>>>>>> Viet Nam:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>> <http://helenaworthen.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> skype:
>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov
>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>> at 8:56
>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>> HENRY
>>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> and Peter,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>>> a lot.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> music
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> nicely:
>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>> voice
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> ear.
>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>> art. In
>>>>>>>> face-to-face
>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is this
>>>>>>>> rhythmically
>>>>>>>> entrained
>>>>>>>> interaction.
>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> cooperative,
>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural
>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>> work is
>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>> a work
>>>>>>>> of art.
>>>>>>>> Vera
>>>>>>>> John-Steiner
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Holbrook
>>>>>>>> Mahn
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> co-construction
>>>>>>>> “at the
>>>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> thought”.
>>>>>>>> Heady
>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> part,
>>>>>>>> or just
>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> disheartening
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> destructive
>>>>>>>> when we
>>>>>>>> give up
>>>>>>>> on dialog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>> this, I
>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> prosodic
>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> (intonation)
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> gestural
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>> simplistic
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> restrict
>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>>> But I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> prototypically
>>>>>>>> visual,
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> accompaniment
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> voice.
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>> surfing
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> web,
>>>>>>>> one can
>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> paralanguage
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> complicate
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> gesture.
>>>>>>>> I think
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> embodiment
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> senses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> 7:00
>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>> <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> notion
>>>>>>>> of delayed
>>>>>>>> gratification
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> turn-taking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hadn't
>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>> participant
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> exercise
>>>>>>>> patience
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else's
>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Much
>>>>>>>> obliged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Fri,
>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> 8:50
>>>>>>>> AM
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting,
>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corballis,
>>>>>>>> oddly
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> view,
>>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> weight
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> so-called
>>>>>>>> mirror
>>>>>>>> neurons
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> intentionality
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> blindingly
>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>> participating
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>> not-present
>>>>>>>> object,
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> begets
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>> perceptive
>>>>>>>> abilities.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> delayed
>>>>>>>> gratification,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> aspect
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> sociality
>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> upright
>>>>>>>> gait
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> frees
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> hands
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> carrying
>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> camp
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> shared
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>> None
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> presupposes
>>>>>>>> tools,
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> cooperation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=itd0qPWlE7uAuyEX0ii8ohEoZegfdMAOOLf-YoaEqqs&s=-uwTjZDhHtJM2EFdBS-rXLTptADQdSGAcibaav-mhJw&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018
>>>>>>>> 12:36
>>>>>>>> am,
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> chime
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> discussion:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> being,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> did,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> *exchanging*
>>>>>>>> utterances
>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> complementarity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> speaking
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>> roles,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> alternating
>>>>>>>> conversational
>>>>>>>> roles
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>> perspectives. Turn-taking
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Thu,
>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>> 15,
>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> 9:21
>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oddly,
>>>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>>>> delivered
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> yesterday
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> p.5.
>>>>>>>> Fortunately,
>>>>>>>> Corballis
>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> synopsis
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> end,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> claim,
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Merlin
>>>>>>>> Donald,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> wonderful
>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>>> Clearly_there
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> humanly
>>>>>>>> possible_.
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> physiological
>>>>>>>> adaptations
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> facilitate
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> being.
>>>>>>>> I.e,
>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>> interpersonal,
>>>>>>>> voluntary
>>>>>>>> communication,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> begin
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> mime
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> gesture,
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> vocalisations
>>>>>>>> (all
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> reference
>>>>>>>> non-present
>>>>>>>> entities
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> situations)
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>> Eventually,
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>> evolved
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> non-speech
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> integral
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>> niche.
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>> wordless
>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> accompanying
>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> hand
>>>>>>>> movements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> suggest,
>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> (something
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> nearest
>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>> cousins
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>> speech)
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> increasing
>>>>>>>> tool-using,
>>>>>>>> tool-making,
>>>>>>>> tool-giving
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> tool-instructing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=A3k5oeQ13zGCPUbWibdOb2KNZT4q__fLyCwugyULUDw&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>> 12:58
>>>>>>>> pm,
>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>> Escandon
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear
>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>> Tomasello
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> claims,
>>>>>>>> grounding
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> surge
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> articulated
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> innate
>>>>>>>> co-operativism
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cambridge.org_core_books_cambridge-2Dhandbook-2Dof-2Dchild-2Dlanguage_90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=vxJZooXRDYwTRrM4dzWBbLfUhF9HhmUvU3ouq6sbwPI&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> Gmail
>>>>>>>> Mobile
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> is intended for
>>>>>>>> the addressee
>>>>>>>> only. It is
>>>>>>>> confidential.
>>>>>>>> If you have
>>>>>>>> received this
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> in error,
>>>>>>>> please notify
>>>>>>>> us immediately
>>>>>>>> and destroy the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> message. You
>>>>>>>> may not copy or
>>>>>>>> disseminate
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>> without the
>>>>>>>> permission of
>>>>>>>> the University.
>>>>>>>> Only authorised
>>>>>>>> signatories are
>>>>>>>> competent to
>>>>>>>> enter into
>>>>>>>> agreements on
>>>>>>>> behalf of the
>>>>>>>> University and
>>>>>>>> recipients are
>>>>>>>> thus advised
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> content of this
>>>>>>>> message may not
>>>>>>>> be legally
>>>>>>>> binding on the
>>>>>>>> University and
>>>>>>>> may contain the
>>>>>>>> personal views
>>>>>>>> and opinions of
>>>>>>>> the author,
>>>>>>>> which are not
>>>>>>>> necessarily the
>>>>>>>> views and
>>>>>>>> opinions of The
>>>>>>>> University of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand,
>>>>>>>> Johannesburg.
>>>>>>>> All agreements
>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>> University and
>>>>>>>> outsiders are
>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>>>>> South African
>>>>>>>> Law unless the
>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>> agrees in
>>>>>>>> writing to the
>>>>>>>> contrary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Mandarin Ducks.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/6826e8e3/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list