[Xmca-l] Re: language and music

Wed Nov 28 06:39:35 PST 2018

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> 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> 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 categories are
> 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> 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> 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
>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil <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 <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD <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> 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> 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 - dancing village 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
>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela <
>>>> 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] *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
>>>>>
>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam:
>>>>>
>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181128/4efe13bc/attachment.html 