Hi Luiz,
I think that what you say is correct. Still, I think that what those authors
allows us to see is that an innate view of language is incomplete and that
you can't make a clean jump from genetics (or evolved capacities) to current
cognition without taking in consideration socio-interactive processes. So, I
see the current dichotomy between oral language and written language (and
the related in vogue division of labor between innatists and
environmentalists)as unfortunate. Of course, the innatist argument is strong
and in good health. But I don't think it is the whole picture. In effect,
both language and writing capitalize on similar mediation processes and both
drive human cognition towards a historically based development beyond their
natural evolutionary determinations. Somehow the seeds of writing are
inscribed in oral language as oral language remains alive in literate
poetry. And I guess that in a specific ontogeny the learning of writing is
intimately connected with the refinement of our linguistic dexterity. (Of
course, I am not saying anything new here.) Most of the work in language
today works on the border of biology and psychology, but I find the other
border, the one between mind and society, equally relevant and, maybe, even
more challenging. So, I will not renounce the sovereignty of language so
quickly to innatism.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Carlos Baptista" <lucabaptista@sapo.pt>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
> David,
>
> Tomasello does a terrific job in Cultural Origins, but I don't see it as
an
> alternative to innatism. When Chomsky talks of an innate "language
faculty",
> he proposes that its "maturation" - during a certain "critical" period -
> depends on the exposure of the child to the proper environmental settings
> (for the latest exposition, cf. "New Horizons in the Study of Language and
> Mind", Cambridge UP, 2000). As far as I can tell, such concepts as "joint
> attentional scenes" and "social-pragmatic cues", as discussed by
Tomasello,
> actually contribute to our understanding of the interactional and
cognitive
> aspects involved in the acquisition of a particular language - seen as a
> concrete instantiation of the innate "language faculty". Please correct me
> if I'm wrong.
>
> As regards your questions about the general topic, I have to admit that
I'm
> still in a very early phase of my investigations. But just to give you an
> example concerning "logotechniques" and digital media, I have a strong
> interest in analyzing the relationship of video and computer games to
> society at large. Such games could be thought of as the result of
processes
> of "world design" - what could be, in some sense, traced back to tabletop
> games, especially in the strategic and role-playing variety. This line of
> research could be extended to encompass the developments in fields such as
> Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life.
>
> That's it for the moment. Rgrds,
>
> Luiz Carlos Baptista
> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> lucabaptista@hotmail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Preiss" <david.preiss@yale.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: segunda-feira, 29 de Setembro de 2003 23:59
> Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
>
>
> > Luiz,
> >
> > Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition offers an
> > interesting alternative to innatism in the acquisition of language,
which
> > also fits indirectly your claims. Bruner in Child's talk do the same.
And
> > before, of course, Vygotsky. As for the general topic, my question will
be
> > how do we move beyond what we know so far, what research strategies we
> > should pursue, what are the open questions we still have to answer when
> > doing research on literacy and cognition, and how do we translate those
> > questions in an empirical program of research.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Luiz Carlos Baptista" <lucabaptista@sapo.pt>
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
> >
> >
> > > These are very good points. Here I follow closely the position of
David
> R.
> > > Olson in his book "The World on Paper": we have writing when we have
> > scripts
> > > with syntax. This includes, for instance, numerical and musical
> notations.
> > > In this sense, if Stonehenge and the Lascaux calendars were tokens of
a
> > > syntactical system, they indeed could be called "logotechniques". But
I
> > > really don't know enough about them. The key moment here, and again I
> take
> > > it from Olson, is when human beings start _reading texts_, instead of
> > > "simply" seeing/describing images.
> > >
> > > As regards language, however, I stick to the good old fashioned
"innate
> > > endowment" hypothesis.
> > >
> > >
> > > Luiz Carlos Baptista
> > > lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> > > lucabaptista@hotmail.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mike Cole" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: segunda-feira, 29 de Setembro de 2003 22:11
> > > Subject: Re: research - writing, printing, computing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Luiz-- Why wouldn't Stonehenge or lunar calandars from Lascaux not
> count
> > > > as logtechniques? And why not language itself?
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:09 PDT