[Xmca-l] Re: language and music
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 2 17:25:30 PST 2018
Ha, ha! No, I don't Martin. But I thought Vygotsky's
arguments in "Consciousness as a problem in the psychology
of behaviour" were pretty sound.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/consciousness.htm
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 3/12/2018 12:20 pm, Martin Packer wrote:
> Andy!
>
> I am surprised to hear you saying this. You think, then,
> that there really is a second candle behind the mirror?
>
> Martin
>
> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr.
> Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber,
> I become at once aware that my partner does not understand
> anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling
> that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)/
>
>
>
>> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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/20181203/0290c586/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list