[Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis

Sat Nov 17 11:05:31 PST 2018

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] On Behalf Of robsub@ariadne.org.uk
Sent: Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Helena Worthen <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181117/1ab93f1f/attachment.html 