Eugene,
I would argue that the intonation is not so much related to
language as it
is to culture - in essence a part of cultural capital that can be
found in
Russia, but in a number of other places around the world with a
number of
different languages. You use the example,
-?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish English,
"Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is very
intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
opposite meaning
with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my taken my
book?" "I
need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
«????? ??? ????? ????
?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange into
English
because the response has the intonation indicating the opposite
meaning that
its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet commented
that
Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
secret police).
But anybody who has listened to Jackie Mason, not such a good
human being
but a pretty good comedian, has heard him using the type of
intonation you
are discussing brilliantly in English - so brilliantly you would
wonder how
it could work in any other language - but of course it could. I'm
sure the
same intonation, or maybe different types of intonations
expressing meaning
but especially sense, could be used in almost any language as long
as the
speaker was comfortable with it. What is interesting about the
use of this
type of intonation is when somebody uses it - at least in English
- I can
make a pretty good guess about where they grew up in the United
States.
Some people who are really good at this can even limit it to general
neighborhoods - and you immediately recognize certain cultural
qualities
about that individual and it cuts through a lot of other
information. On
the other end of the spectrum somebody could use the intonation
perfectly in
Columbus Ohio and individuals would just understand the remark
based on the
more straight forward understanding (and might consider you a
little alien
for using the intonation). What also might suggest the intonation
being
part of cultural capital rather than the language itself is the
fact the I
think it is often time used as a form of intimacy, kidding, or
making fun in
a non-maliscious way.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Eugene Matusov
Sent: Sat 5/2/2009 1:31 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; 'Zoi Philippakos'; 'eXtended Mind,
Culture, Activity'; 'PIG'
Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Dear Mike and everybody-
You wrote, "another example of binary logic which is anti-human".
I wonder
what makes this logic anti-human is not necessary that it is
binary, but
maybe the fact that it strives to be the universal, unconditional,
disembodied, and decontextualized. I think that limited and
situated binary
relations can be humane. As you nicely put it before, the
universal answer
to any problem is, "it depends" ;-) The big problem, of course,
what it
depends on... (I always say to my grad students that the answer
for the
latter question will be addressed in a future Advanced Grad
Sociocultural
Seminar that I never teach J)
??
-?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish English,
"Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is very
intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
opposite meaning
with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my taken my
book?" "I
need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
«????? ??? ????? ????
?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange into
English
because the response has the intonation indicating the opposite
meaning that
its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet commented
that
Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
secret police).
Ed made an interesting and thought-provoking point, "Social
relations
don't give rise to mathematics, but mathematics seems to give,
perspectivally, a rise to social relations." I think that in
general, it is
a chicken-egg problem but I suspect that social relations have
priority over
math. So, Ed, we have a respectful disagreement, indeed. The
reason for my
suspicion is that usually, although not always, social relations
have a
priority over everything else. For example, it seems that historical
emergency of geometry was a result of a certain development of
private
property on land and conflicts associated with it. Certain (but
not all!)
mathematical questions could emerge only within certain social
relations..
One of these vivid examples can be mathematical division. I'm
always amazed
how difficult for Western kids to understand fractional division
leading to
a number bigger that divided. For example, 2 divided by ½ becomes
4. Western
understanding of fair sharing almost exclusively as splitting the
whole on
equal but smaller parts (private property) makes very difficult to
consider
a possibility for collective sharing in which the more people
share the more
value the whole has. We have a PIG Lab of Internationally Recognize
Excellence - the more people use it, the more valuable it becomes
(to a
point of course, ;-). By collective sharing, ten PIGgies virtually
have 10
labs! Or 1 divided on 1/10 is 10. I think this fractional division
reflects
collective sharing (and collective fairness) in contrast to whole
number
division based on private property sharing (and private property
fairness).
It is interesting to study this question empirically....
What do you think?
Eugene
PS I know that everyone in this XMCA discussion who replies to my
messages
gets bounced message from the PIG email list (no connection to the
swine
flu!). I try to resend your messages to the my PIGgy colleagues.
---------------------
Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
Professor of Education
School of Education
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716, USA
email: ematusov@udel.edu
fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu <http://
ematusov.soe.udel.edu/> <
http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/>
publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu <
http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/> <http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/>
---------------------
From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:01 PM
To: Eugene Matusov
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; backontrack@wwscholars.org;
Zoi
Philippakos; PIG
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
That it works to think that the enemy of your enemy is your friend
is
another example
of binary logic which is anti-human. Shit happens a lot, Eugene.
Your yeah yeah example is in the increasingly long and equally
interesting
trail of emails on
this thread.
da da
?
zhanchit?
mike
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear Mike--
You wrote,
And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe that the
enemy
of
your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
Actually, it worked rather well during the WWII for the Allies (US-
UK) and
the USSR. Their cooperation in opposition to the Nazi Germany was
governed
by the Arabic wisdom "an enemy of your enemy is your friend." It
can be
powerful indeed but as you said it is not universal.
As to the natural language and the formal logic (math), in natural
language
(+1)*(+1)=-1, according to famous anecdote, "The most celebrated
[Sidney]
Morgenbesser anecdote involved visiting Oxford philosopher J. L.
Austin,
who
noted that it was peculiar that although there are many languages
in which
a
double negative makes a positive, no example existed where two
positives
expressed a negative. In a dismissive voice, Morgenbesser replied
from the
audience, 'Yeah, yeah.'"
Take care,
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
]
On Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:38 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi Philippakos; PIG
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Eugene, the mixture of plus and minus was the focus of my inquiry.
Natural
language understanding
of double negatives solves that problem for 2 numbers, beyond
which I
assume
natural language needs
a notation system to keep track.
So far Jerry Balzano's mirror explanation seems like it has the
best
chance
with my grand daughter (in
part because i can actually imagine creating the demonstration that
lines up
intuition and notation). I
have not had time to read all of the notes in this thread owing to
heavy
teaching and extra lecture schedule
and a rash of recommendation letters out of season (which I will
accept
as a
sub for swine flu). But
simply in scanning could I make a plea for socio-CULTURAL
constructivism? If
we do not keep what is
essential to human forms of human sociality in the discussion, we
might
as
well be talking about bonobos
who, at least, know enough to make love not war.
And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe that the
enemy
of
your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
mike
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear everybody--
In response to Mike's profound inquiry of why a minus times a
minus
is a
plus, I was thinking that it is a mathematical model of the Arabic
wisdom
that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." Of course, the latter is
not
always true -- we have plenty of examples when enemy of our
enemy is
still
our enemy (or just indifferent) and, thus, for these types of
social
relations, the mathematical model of (-1) x (-1) =1 does not work.
Just
consider, for an example, the relations among the US, Al-Qaida,
and
Saddam
Hussein.
The issue for me is why the Western civilization prioritizes (and
then
mathematizes) social relations described in the Arabic wisdom. One
answer
is
because "the real world" works according to these social relations
(i.e.,
the social relations is just an example of the truth out there).
An
alternative explanation is that the Western civilization can
afford
and
might be even benefit from imposing these social relations on "the
real
world" that by itself is indifferent to any social relations (and
thus
mathematical models). Any other explanations?
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Ng Foo Keong
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:23 PM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Is Mathematics _merely_ socially constructed, or is there something
deeper and inevitable?
I think this deserves a new thread, but I couldn't manage to
start
one.
Let me try to draw out and assemble the line of discussion that
spun
off from the "a minus times a plus" thread.
In her inaugural post to xcma, Anna Sfard about talked "rules
of the mathematical game" among other things.
Then Jay Lemke said:-
...
I think it's important, however, to see, as Anna emphasizes,
that there is a certain "arbitrariness" involved in this, or
if you like it better: a freedom of choice. Yes, it's
structure-and-agency all over again! Structure determines that
some things fit into bigger pictures and some don't, but
agency is always at work deciding which pictures, which kind
of fit, which structures, etc. And behind that values, and
culture, and how we feel about things.
-----
Then I (Ng Foo Keong) said:-
regarding structure and agency, arbitrariness:-
i think now it's time for me to pop this question that has been
bugging me for some time. i am convinced that mathematics is
socially constructured, but i am not so convinced that
mathematics
is _merely_ socially constructured. if we vary across cultures
and different human activities, we might find different ways
in which patterns and structure can be expressed and yet we
might
find commonalities / analogies. the question i am asking is:
is maths just a ball game determined by some group of nerds who
happen to be in power and dominate the discourse, or is there
some
invariant, something deeper in maths that can transcend and unite
language, culture, activity .... ?
Foo Keong,
NIE, Singapore
-----
Then Ed Wall said:-
Ng Foo Keong
As regards your question about mathematics being socially
constructed, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by
mathematics or what kind of evidence would convince you it
wasn't.
Suppose I said that there was evidence for innate subtizing.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca