[Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis

Fri Nov 16 10:58:19 PST 2018

Hi, Helena.

A good source on the topic you describe is R. Keith Sawyer's book *Pretend
Play As Improvisation: Conversation in the Preschool Classroom* (Erlbaum,
1997).
A musician turned psychologist, Keith applies the metaphor of musical
improvisation to children's conversations, making a strong case for viewing
speech
decisions (lexical, grammatical, intentional, pragmatic, etc.) as
essentially free-wheeling and improvised. With a large word stock and a
fixed set of rules for
combining them into hierarchical structures, an infinite number of
utterances are possible. Thus, we are almost compelled to improvise our
utterances.

I often ask myself why, given the above, we end up having the same
conversations and repeating the same words and phrases over and over again.
But then I
recall that it is the recurring situations that are responsible. And
situations play a defining role in specifying the types of speech
collaborations we enter into.

Having written this, I realize it doesn't address your interest in the
musical qualities of speech itself. To that point, what comes to mind is
the observation of my
mentor, John Dore, a linguist who applied the concept of speech acts to the
analysis of children's conversations: He said that emotion is introduced
into speech
largely through intonation, which *rides on the back of words*.

Cheers,
Peter

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:31 PM Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
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
> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
> Blog US/ Viet Nam:
> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__helenaworthen.wordpress.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=HkzbcTLxX_S7Jwb_0rDSGvvuBxNbSxE4RFLf9q1kyfY&s=G5x3lzAHzzHl2hh8MZTDxJghqj3xE8k7vG_tQ2qjpAs&e=>
> skype: helena.worthen1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD <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> 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> 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> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181116/090a1dd1/attachment.html 