Michael and Tony:
Thank you for the useful information. What cultural influences would
produce the phylogentic development?
eric
Tony Whitson
<twhitson who-is-at UDel.E To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
du> cc: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent by: Subject: correction RE: [xmca] Reference for ontological and phylogenetic
xmca-bounces who-is-at web languagecomparison
er.ucsd.edu
01/11/2007 09:39
AM
Please respond
to "eXtended
Mind, Culture,
Activity"
I inserted "phylogenic" in the wrong place before. It's fixed below.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Tony Whitson wrote:
> What a nice, useful analogy Michael.
>
> I'm thinking about how to make it more precisely parallel. The
(ontogenic)
> development of language ability in the child could be compared with the
> (ontogenic) development of a player's football skills (I'm thinking
> basketball might work better, since -- at least in US "gridiron" football
-- > most players on the field have specialized roles not requiring as great a > range of versatile skills as in basketball [IMHO: a defensive left guard > might think otherwise]). So, the development of a [basketball] player's > skills would not recapitulate the (phylogenic) development of the game itself. Skills > that might have had value in the game as it was played in the early history > of the game might have no value for players today, and would not be part of > a developmental stage that today's players go through on their way to > development of skills they use today. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On > Behalf Of Wolff-Michael Roth > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:22 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Cc: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Re: [xmca] Reference for ontological and phylogenetic > languagecomparison > > A CHAT perspective built on the dialectic of individual and > collective, the person realizes cultural possibilities available to > any one else. From this perspective, children grow up in a different > material context, hearing different utterances in the context of > different situation. This would lead to the contention that ontogeny > does not recapitulate phylogeny, much in the same way that a present > day football game would not recapitulate the first football game ever > played or its precursor. (The referent of "football" can be taken the > British or American way). > Michael > > On 11-Jan-07, at 6:46 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote: > > > Dan I. Slobin has an article, "From Ontogenesis to phylogenesis: what > can > child language tell us about language evolution?" that appears in IN > the > j. Langer, S.T. Parker edited volume, "BIology and Knowledge. > > The questions he poses in the article are: Does linguistic ontogeny > recapitulate phylogeny?, Does linguistic diachrony recapitulate > ontogony? > OD children create grammatical forms? > > good read but not a CHAT perspective but rather biologicaly based. > > eric > > > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > >Tony Whitson UD School of Education NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu _______________________________
"those who fail to reread are obliged to read the same story everywhere" -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970) _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:31 PST