[Xmca-l] Re: language and music
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 2 17:13:55 PST 2018
Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly behind
the game! :) Thank you.
I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in that
it does /not /include the category of Subject in its triads
(e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This means that it can
be used for the analysis of /objective/ processes. When used
in this way it does not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue
of Peirce's semiotics was the basis of my objection to
James's observation. Speech and gesture has a subject.
The other minor point I would make about your very erudite
response is that I think we should not be too apologetic
about using the concept of "mind." True, mind is not a
sensible entity, but in all human interactions we deduce the
state of minds from the observable behaviour, and in fact
(scientific or everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible
without the presumption that it is mindful to this or that
extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and Chomsky
would murder us! :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
> Andy,
>
> My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to
> be critical or charitable toward linguistic anthropologists.
>
> The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions
> (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John
> Lucy, among others), you are right.
>
> The charitable approach would say that linguistic
> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely the
> things that you are talking about. Most of the ones that I
> know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them
> are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying
> formal structures that exist in someplace called "the
> mind" (where is that exactly?). In fact, one of the
> greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I
> know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to
> say, a mere documenter of language variation across the
> globe. Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of
> understanding the practical consequences of semiotic
> forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes
> precisely the point that you are making through his
> deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce offers a
> means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice rather than
> one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach
> to semiotics would suggest).
>
> The critical approach is nice because you can just
> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their
> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable approach
> might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their
> project. That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that
> there might be a few who are interested, but most on the
> listserve will find that it wasn't worth investing the
> time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy
> world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that
> learning the language of an entirely new system is a major
> time commitment and only worth it in rare cases).
>
> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to
> the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that you
> seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book How
> Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a
> humanist and don't like this approach for some very
> fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed to this
> position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best person to make
> the case for this position - unless you are really
> genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond
> your one screen rule!
>
> Cheers,
> greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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/f0e7e1f1/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list