Re: [xmca] Are Fleer and Hedegaard Bernsteinians?

[Marilyn Fleer <Marilyn.Fleer@Education.monash.edu.au>]

Dear All,

I just returned from China last week and found your amazing trail of 
discussion on our paper. Because I was working in remote villages, I 
didn't have email access - so was not able to contribute at key times. 
However, I have ploughed through all the communications and have some 
'expansions on the data' to contribute some of the questions posed.

1.      Tracing right back to the discussion on 'situation'; 'socially 
situated development' and 'social situation of development'
I totally agree with Andy and Mike the former two terms are completely 
different to the latter term 'social situation of development' (SSD). 
However, it is not surprising that there is confusion.  I think it is very 
difficult to fully appreciate the complexity of SSD when 'the norm' is to 
read child development within a chronological or temporal framework (as we 
still see underpinning many resources and documents for practitioners 
working with young children). In that kind of reading 'environment' 
becomes an 'influencing factor'. This is such a different reading to the 
SSD. When the child's relations to their social world change due to new 
level of consciousness, brought about by new demands (as refracted through 
their own self understandings), then others relations to the child may 
also change (if not, conflict arises).  Or has neoformations result, the 
child also has new consciousness  and relations to reality and those that 
surround the child, resulting in a new social situation of development (as 
we often see with teenagers, who are treated like babies). Bozhovich 
(2009) in referring to Vygotsky's work, remarks upon how the environment 
maybe exactly the same (demands, conflicts, etc), but how 2 children may 
experience it will be very different, due to what they bring to this 
context, how the experience is refracted through the child's own 
understandings. When you have 2 adults and 4 children, plus a dog (as is 
the profile of Andrew's family), then teasing out the social situation of 
development is difficult! To add to this, we have the institution of the 
school, and how the new demands being placed on Andrew (and by default, 
Andrew's mother), also changed the relations between Andrew and his mother 
at home. The history of child rearing and the teacher's pedagogy from the 
school, were enacted simultaneously - within the moments of when we were 
video taping in the home. Within the word limit of the paper it was not 
possible to provide elaborated examples (although they were originally in 
the paper when it was being written - they had to be cut or pruned). We 
factored in 12 months into the study design for the Australian families 
and the Danish families. But the paper only addresses the first 
observation period for the Australian family. 

As researchers investigating the concept of child development, I found it 
incredibly difficult to initially make sense of the data that I was 
gathering with my research assistant. In situ, filming families 
interacting at a very fast pace and being incredibly active, engaging in 
interactional styles I was unfamiliar with, meant that I was in sensory 
overload (and my RA) each time we went into the family home to film. 

2.      Mike's comment regarding how is the 'home influencing the school'
If you take the above 'messy' reading of SSD, then it is possible to 
examine the relations between the teacher and Andrew in the school 
context. Andrew was influencing the school context each day he was in the 
classroom. In the first observation period, the new demands upon Andrew, 
generated a motive for being a 'well behaved child at school'. He devoted 
a lot of energy to doing this well, and checking up on others who did not. 
(In the second observation period this changed to 'not getting into 
trouble' - this is not reported upon in the paper) Andrew's scanning 
behaviours were allowed, as they were not disruptive to the accepted 
institutional norms (although they created another response over time). 
Although not reported in the paper, the teacher's interactions moved 
between a policing kind of behaviour to a sheep dog herding kind of 
interaction. These interactions were directly related to what Andrew 
brought with him into the classroom (as his established behaviours). The 
new demands upon Andrew created a change in his consciousness about how to 
interact/move about, in much the same way as the institutional deviation 
exhibited by Andrew changed the level of consciousness of the teacher as a 
new set of interactions were needed in dealing with Andrew's geographical 
roaming. Studying child development as a whole, where all the institutions 
a child participates in, provides an opportunity for better understanding 
the SSD of Andrew.

3.      Discourse analysis
Some comments were made regarding the machine gun fire of language. Once 
again, this was data that had to be cut from the paper when it was being 
written. The language style of the family could only be understood in the 
context of the geographical roaming. The diagram which I included in the 
paper shows movement between rooms. It does not show the movement within 
the room. The diagram would have wound up being a black blob if I had 
included more movement data! If you can imagine being in a room where all 
the members of the household are moving from room to room, and moving with 
the room, and then layer onto this the families simultaneously speaking to 
each other, then all that is possible is to have short sentences - as 
there may be 2 or 3 conversations actually taking place. Language analysis 
is not my area, so I cannot really provide more explanation. However, I 
suspect the data could be mined for other important linguistical features 
(which I know nothing about). However, my commonsense analysis draws upon 
work I have read in the cross-cultural literature, where a range of 
interaction patterns are also noted (eg. Barbara Rogoff and her team).

Finally, the answer to the question "Are Fleer and Hedegaard 
Bersteinians?" is no. 

I hope these additions help with the rich discussion that is emerging. I 
have found your discussions very interesting and enlightening. 

Off to a meeting...
Marilyn


From:
mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
To:
David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
Cc:
Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date:
31/05/2010 10:40 AM
Subject:
Re: [xmca] Are Fleer and Hedegaard Bernsteinians?



As dialogue. Good monday morning, David.

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Kellogg 
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Mike:
>
> I'm afraid EVEN the Bersteinian view (which really IS an ontogenetic 
one)
> is too synchronic and not developmental enough for what I want to do. 
I'm a
> teacher; I'm interested AT MOST in the interface between microgenesis 
and
> ontogenesis.
>
>

*Well, in my way and in my times and places, i am a teacher, too, David.
But as a teacher and as a student of teaching, learning, and development
(which i keep trying to learn to de-con-flate to the proper degree at the
proper time!) I am also interested in phylogeny and cultural history. I
kinda by into the intertangling of these "genetic" domains in the daily 
life
of individuals, like a kid I have been working with for some time who is
struggling with arithmetic, and i am trying to figure out both the sources
("origins") of the problems and ways to help him overcome them.

Sure, its microgenesis and ontogenesis "before my eyes" but i am also
fascinated by the evidence that under some conditions chimps display what
appear for all the world like some form of ability to add and subtract 
(the
hedge words are important) and that for small numbers, if we accept
differential looking as a criterion, so can newborns.  But this kid, who
seems normal in every way, struggles way beyond the normative age with
problems that are too simple (from my limited perspective) not to raise
questions. So, while making it a lot of fun for him to play "chutes and
ladders" (demonstrated "scientifically" to improve elementary arithmetic
operations in poor kids, but also a game that he runs home to get every 
time
he sees me coming, and that other kids ask to play, so I can remove myself
and observe him and his friends) I wonder about what might be occurring 
such
that he is not doing what chimps and newborns appear to do. And I wonder
about the controversial data on the Piraha in the Amazon whose language 
and
arithmetic skills have stirred up such a controversy (Bernstein would have
been real interested in these folks-- talk about restricted code). And 
worry
about the sociogenetic factors that lead him to be living in a multi-mixed
up kinship situation at home in a violence-filled neighborhood where you
have to take two buses to get to the nearest market with fresh vegetables.
 *

> You MIGHT be able to interest me in the interface between ontogenesis 
and
> sociogenesis if you can demonstrate that it's directly relevant, i.e.
> recoverable from classroom data. But I'm like Andrew; when people start
> talking about the origins of language I begin to scan the room, and if I
> can't do that my eyeballs are going to roll right back into my head.
>  *You are going to fast for me here. What counts? I assume my experience
> with, lets call him, Elijah, does not. Right? I have no classroom, but 
more
> importantly, i need to "see" race and social class in the interactions?
> Would the data from Moll and Di where they show that Mexicano kids can 
read
> and understand English, but their English-only speaking teacher who 
firmly
> believes that first you have to pronounce phonemes correctly before you 
get
> to start learning how to comprehend (and who believes you can 
unambiguously
> communicate "in phonemes") keeps them working on "decoding" because 
their
> pronounciation is "still wrong." So they can never get to an interaction
> which counts as reading with comprehension, until Luis and Esteban come
> along, ask them to read in English and then discuss in any mixture of
> English and Spanish they choose and make visible and audible their 
ability
> to read. Is that a sociogenetic process at work in a classroom?
> *
>


> **
> I loved Andy's quote from von Humboldt, but only because it shows, once
> again, how unoriginal the most "original" Derridaisms are. I don't 
actually
> think it is true in any useful way that man ever had one
> language. The avowed irrelevance of Chomskyanism to teaching tells us 
that
> the before Babel links between all languages are too abstract to be very
> useful to anybody who does not already believe in them.
>
*Andy is a big Goethe fan, and in my limited way, so am I. I always liked
his statement "**Everything has been thought of* before, but the problem 
is
to think of it again." So Vygotsky learned it all from Shpet but too 
chicken
to make that public, and Shpet probably learned a lot from Potebnya, and 
von
Humboldt said it all before any of them, and so on. And if you were to ask
the people they "got it from" those geniuses would all say that the new 
kid
on the block got it wrong. We are all naives standing on the shoulders of
other naives. It can be annoying. It only gets really irritating when 
people
act like they are levitating and wondering about why those around them are
standing on the ground, watching the sheep grazing.

>
> The physical evidence is largely the other way around. I think that 
early
> man posessed hundreds of thousands of languages and that these have been
> gradually dwindling to only one. Even today, traveling around Tibet, you
> notice that Tibetan speakers often address each other in Chinese. This 
is
> because they lack a mutually intelligible dialect of Tibetan; even in 
the
> Lhasa valley you can tell the difference between speakers in one village 
and
> those in another. Physically cut off from each other by mountains, 
rivers,
> and above all the need to keep moving to maintain a livelihood, this 
must
> have been the situation for many of our ancestors.
>  There has to be a lot of truth to that. Not sure about the dwindling to
> one, but pretty sure it won't be English. Seems like languages have a 
way of
> becoming a "lingua franca" as the empire that they mediated is 
disappearing.
> The dwindling of human languages should have been counterbalanced by the
> kinds of centrifugal tendencies that Bakhtin talks about. But the
> centripetal processes have been greatly accelerated by the physical, 
bodily
> eradication of minority language speakers, which is why English, 
probably
> the world's WORST world language in terms of its learnability (and its 
sheer
> phonological WEIRDNESS), is probably going to become, at least for a 
while,
> the real successor to the mythical tongue of Babel.
>  *Yes, its the physical eradication that is really upsetting.
> *
> The major cause of linguicide (first in North America and Australia, now 
in
> the Amazon and in Africa) is not the acquisition of English. It's
> not assimilation but extermination. This is why I have very little 
patience
> for the argument that, well, you see, languages don't exist anyway. Or 
if
> they do they are all the same. Or if they are not then there are 
languages
> being created as quickly as they die out. A tongue is not sound that can 
be
> manipulated to mean "ass" or "cul-ture" and giggles from schoolboys; 
it's a
> piece of flesh, and when you cut it, it bleeds.
>  *yep*
> But let us suppose that the idealists are right. Let's suppose that  the
> idea of sound as sign IS one idea and not many. Let us suppose that the 
idea
> of sound as sign does contain an insuperable, untranslatable
> opposition: Your sound is not my sound, and your sign is not mine.
>  *gotta stop here. A tough artichoke is calling. Or maybe its just the
> idea of the artichoke that sounds like its tough. back when///
> *
> The essence of language is not untranslatability but the very opposite:
> bootstrapping (that is, getting at one kind of meaning by using another,
> getting at ostension by using gesture, and gesture by using 
denomination,
> and denomination by using syntactization). Bootstrapping is nothing but 
a
> form of translation, every utterance is understandable, and translatable
> because it is "bootstrapped" by the material, referential, contextual
> substratum of language (not by endless oppositions of vowels and 
consonants
> or presences and absences).
>
> Right up until the early sixties, it was quite normal to consider
> multilingualism a form of learning disability (and in particular a form 
of
> reading disability). Even Vygotsky worries about this a little bit in 
his
> essay on the "Multilingual Child" (Collected Works, Vol. 4, 253-259). If
> word meanings are really droplets of consciousness, isn't a bilingual a
> little bit schizophrenic?
>
> No more than a man who has two eyes, and two ears and a nose with two
> nostrils. The key problem for Andrew, and for Andrew's teachers, is how 
to
> bootstrap READING and LITERACY by using the visual scanning skills he 
has
> (apparently) acquired. I don't think it's easy; the meanings of literacy
> are quite different from those of "machine gun conversation", and the
> differences run deep. But talk IS translatable into text and vice versa;
> they are, in the final analysis, all about the same thing, and when you 
have
> understood the one, then you can begin to understand the other.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> --- On *Sun, 5/30/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Are Fleer and Hedegaard Bernsteinians?
> To: "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca>
> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Sunday, May 30, 2010, 3:24 PM
>
>
> David and Michael—
>
>
>
> I have only read Derrida in English and that a long time ago and was 
pretty
> thoroughly confused. I am confused by a lot of the recent exchange. I
> greatly appreciate those parts of the discussion where you seek to rise 
to
> the concrete in order that I can grasp the main points. From there it
> becomes at least possible in principle to follow up. So, thanks. It is a
> generous use of your time.
>
>
>
> Below is one of a couple of messages that follow on and comment on 
recent
> exchanges. This one re note from Michael (nice followup from von 
Humboldt,
> Andy). The next from David’s note.
>
>
>
> This makes good sense to me, but I did not get it from the quotations 
back
> and forth that you two exchanged:
>
>
> take a cultural-historical perspective on language, its roots, in the 
vocal
> productions of those folks leaving Africa, the Proto-Indo-European, and 
how
> languageS emerged from the very possibility of the sound becoming sign. 
All
> languages realize this possibility, and so we ever only speak one 
language,
> which is mine and not mine at the same time, which is always from the 
other
> for the other . . . you find these themes in Bakhtin, Bakhtin/Volosinov, 
in
> Mikhailov.
>
> *Each of these statements also makes at least some sense to me, but none 
of
> them appear to be making the point about the historical divergence of
> languages. Each seems to be about the mutual constitution of self and 
other
> in language (I would probably phrase it as language/culture). This goes
> along with earlier discussion by Larry and others on infancy, but that 
is
> for separate note.*
>
> * *
>
> *I assume that the asymmetry in what is stated below comes from the fact
> that there are so many others and that (except for linguicide case david
> talks about below) the other preceeds and follows us.*
>
> DERRIDA, 1998, p.40
> We only ever speak one language-and, since it returns to the
> other, it exists asymmetrically, always for the other, from the other,
> kept by the other. Coming from the other, remaining with the
> other, and returning to the other.
>
> MIKHAILOV, 2001, p.17
> the subjective reality of an inner voice, born of its
> externalization for the Other, and thus also for oneself as for the
> Other within oneself.
>
>
> BAKHTINE [VOLOCHINOV], 1977, p.123-4 (Fr., my transl)
> Any word has two faces. It is determined as much by the fact that it
> proceeds from someone as it is by the fact that it is directed toward
> someone. . . .
> Through the word I define myself with respect to the other, that is to 
say,
> in the final analysis, vis-a-vis the collectivity
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mroth@uvic.ca>>
> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > take a cultural-historical perspective on language, its roots, in the
> vocal
> > productions of those folks leaving Africa, the Proto-Indo-European, 
and
> how
> > languageS emerged from the very possibility of the sound becoming 
sign.
> Alll
> > languages realize this possibility, and so we ever only speak one
> language,
> > which is mine and not mine at the same time, which is always from the
> other
> > for the other . . . you find these themes in Bakhtin, 
Bakhtin/Volosinov,
> in
> > Mikhailov.
> >
> > DERRIDA, 1998, p.40
> > We only ever speak one language-and, since it returns to the
> > other, it exists asymmetrically, always for the otlter, from the 
other,
> > kept by the other. Coming from the other, remaining with the
> > other, and returning to the other.
> >
> > MIKHAILOV, 2001, p.17
> > the subjective reality of an inner voice, born of its
> > externalization for the Other, and thus also for oneself as for the
> > Other within oneself.
> >
> >
> > BAKHTINE [VOLOCHINOV], 1977, p.123-4 (Fr., my transl)
> > Any word has two faces. It is determined as much by the fact that it
> > procedes from someone as it is by the fact that it is directed toward
> > someone. . . .
> > Through the word I define myself with respect to the other, that is to
> say,
> > in the final analysis, vis-a-vis the collectivity
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2010-05-27, at 9:30 PM, mike cole wrote:
> >
> > Michael and David-- You guys are talking over my head!
> > What does Derrida say that David Ke is misunderstanding?
> > Where is it said that LSV is beloved?
> > What Bakhtin should we be reading to decode this?
> > Which Mikhailov is in question here.
> > lost in may grey on so cal.
> > mike
> >
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mroth@uvic.ca>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi polyglott, man of many words, scholar of many examples . . .
> > impressive,
> > > if it weren't for your misunderstanding of Derrida. Believe me, this
> > > philosopher is worth being read well, as well or better than your
> beloved
> > > Vygotsky. I am truly amazed in how similar his thinking is with that 
of
> > > Bakhtin, whom Mikhailov appreciates a lot.  :-) Michael
> > >
> > > On 2010-05-27, at 7:02 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > >
> > > Wolff-Michael likes this quote from Derrida:
> > >
> > > We only ever speak one language.
> > > We never speak only one language.
> > >
> > > Butzkamm has a rather more realistic formulation, "We only learn
> language
> > > once". He means, of course, that languages consist of other 
languages,
> > much
> > > as minds are made up of other minds (either in the form of discourse 
or
> > in
> > > the form of text).
> > >
> > > For example, our elementary English syllabus consists of mostly
> GERMANIC
> > > nouns (e.g. "table" and "apple") but as the children grow older they
> will
> > > acquire more LATINATE ones (e.g. "refrigerator" and "helicopter").
> Korean
> > > works the same way; yesterday at lunch we had a choice between a
> stately,
> > > scholarly sounding restaurant with a Chinese name and more rustic,
> > village
> > > fare sold in a restaurant with a pure Korean title.
> > >
> > > You know, it turns out that the so-called "vocabulary explosion" is 
a
> > kind
> > > of myth, like the "explosive" economic growth of very poor 
countries.
> Any
> > > normal human mind left in a social situation of development that is
> > > sufficiently open to provide new word meanings at the proper rate 
(say,
> a
> > > multilingual one, or just a reasonably challenging cognitive one) 
will
> > > naturally continue to acquire vocabulary at roughly the same rate as 
a
> > baby
> > > all life your life long. The problem is that everyday life in a
> > monolingual
> > > capitalist society really doesn't supply this, so those of us who 
want
> to
> > go
> > > on learning new words in our fifties are really forced to emigrate.
> > >
> > > My Portuguese is only good for some things, but I do know the
> difference
> > > between 'ser" and "estar". I originally thought it was the 
difference
> > > between "etre" and "avoir" in French, because of course French uses 
"to
> > > have" in many situations where English would use hte copula. Then I
> > learned
> > > some Spanish, so I figured it it was like the difference between 
"ser"
> > and
> > > "estar" in Spanish. This too is wrong.
> > >
> > > As far as I can figure out, "ser" is really about BEING or ESSENCE, 
and
> > > "estar" describes ESTATE or temporality passing STATE. So the 
weather
> > tends
> > > to be "estar" and people, particularly in their 
class/national/gender
> > > origins tend to be "ser".
> > >
> > > Now the reason I mention all this is that I've been worrying a 
little
> bit
> > > about the references in Fleer/Hedegaard to "machine gun fire"
> > conversation
> > > in Andrew's household. We are not actually given any examples of
> "machine
> > > gun fire" conversation, so the mind (well, my mind) inevitably
> associates
> > it
> > > with the constant moving around that seems to go on in the Peninsula
> > family
> > > which is semi-internalized by Andrew when he goes to school as
> > "scanning".
> > > That is, words are sprayed out in short bursts without any precise 
aim,
> > > splattering whole rooms in a single salvo. It's not a very pretty
> > metaphor,
> > > but that seems to be what the authors are getting at.
> > >
> > > So what we get is a kind of "mismatch" hypothesis. The language of 
home
> > > does not match the language of schooling, and this augurs poorly for
> > > Andrew's cognitive development. Engestrom's article in the Daniels'
> > > "Introduction to Vygotsky" also puts forward a similarly 
Bernsteinian
> > > theory, and suggests three basic ways of overcoming the mismatch.
> > >
> > > a) Davydov and Schmittau: Providing sufficiently powerful CONCEPTS 
that
> > > will allow the child to take their school understanding into the
> > mismatched
> > > extracurricular world.
> > >
> > > b) Lave and Wenger: Provide experiential communities of practice 
that
> > allow
> > > the child to take the extracurricular world into the mismatched 
school.
> > >
> > > c) Learning by expanding: that is, EXPANDING the school until it 
merges
> > > with the community and expanding the child's extracurricular world
> until
> > it
> > > is one with the school.
> > >
> > > Engeström, Yrjö (2005) Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward 
overcoming
> > the
> > > encapsulation of school learning. 157-176. in Daniels, H. (ed.) 
(2005)
> An
> > > Introduction to Vygotsky. Hove and New York: Routledge.
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems to me that each view is Utopian in its own way (in a good
> way!)
> > > but that all may actually be unnecessary. There are a couple of 
things
> > > wrong, EMPIRICALLY wrong, with the Bernsteinian mismatch view, at 
least
> > as I
> > > understand it.
> > >
> > > a) By the time kids get into high school--even middle school--they 
are
> > not
> > > talking like their parents. They talk like each other. So how can a
> > learning
> > > deficit be blamed on a home language?
> > >
> > > b) If anything, middle class home language is LESS strongly framed 
than
> > > working class language, and yet middle class kids DO do better in
> school.
> > >
> > > c) None of this appears to apply at all to bilinguals, at least not
> above
> > a
> > > certain threshold. Bilinguals have a cognitive edge in every 
subject,
> > even
> > > nonllinguistic ones, and it's lifelong (so that, for example,
> bilinguals
> > > actually do better when they get Alzheimer's!)
> > >
> > > In the 1950s, Stalin wrote an essay on "Marxism and Linguistics" in
> which
> > > he criticized Vygotsky's friend and teacher J. Ia. Marr for arguing
> that
> > > language was "superstructural", and did not by itself create class
> > > differences but rather reflected them. Stalin, who was obsessed with
> the
> > > idea of stability in nation states, argued that language was base; 
if
> you
> > > control language, you control the nation state and everybody in it 
as
> > well.
> > > Interestingly, Marr had argued against explicit instruction in 
grammar,
> > and
> > > some of Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech, in which Vygotsky 
defends
> > > grammar instruction, is a polemic against his friend.
> > >
> > > I remember that part of the excitement of reading Vygotsky for the
> first
> > > time was the realization that here was somebody who did NOT make
> Piaget's
> > > mistake of thinking that language was pure epiphenomenon and on the
> other
> > > hand recognized that at any one moment language is a small part of 
some
> > > larger picture we can call culture (much of which is also made up of
> > > language, but language in the form of text rather than in the form 
of
> > > ongoing dicourse). So in that sense language is not destiny; it's a
> > matter
> > > of "estar" rather than "ser".
> > >
> > > It's not that we only speak one language: it is that we only learn
> > language
> > > once.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > --- On Thu, 5/27/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Cognitivist theory & language learning
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> > > Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 4:06 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > The Davids have provided professional answers to your question, 
Tony.
> > > Just a couple of thoughts of a different sort.
> > >
> > > The message got me to wondering, again, about AA Leontiev's work on
> > second
> > > language learning which was discussed here a long time ago (at
> something
> > i
> > > code as "here" but not sure where it was except on line and somehow
> > > connected with LCHC).
> > >
> > > My own limited experience is that learning a language outside of the
> > > context
> > > of its use in locally organized activities in that language is
> > > extra-ordinarily problematic. Perhaps, as David Ke suggests, because
> one
> > > has
> > > to solve Plato's learning paradox. But my solution to that paradox 
is
> to
> > > place it inside of culturally organized activity which presupposes 
it
> has
> > > been solved, which is exactly what Tony cannot do.
> > >
> > > I learned a lot more Russian in Moscow the first time we went than 
my
> > wife
> > > did, although once we were there with a newborn, she did a lot more
> > > learning
> > > than I did. Why?
> > >
> > > First time she was not allowed to work and only got out of the 
student
> > role
> > > when she got into a practicum journalism experience, but 
unfortunately
> > from
> > > the perspective of language learning it was at the English language
> > > Newspaper, Moscow News. Made perfect sense in its way. Meantime, i 
was
> in
> > > the middle of a group of Luria co-workers whose English was minimal,
> who
> > > had
> > > serious work to do, who had to get me to understand and coordinate 
or
> > risk
> > > harm to someone. Never mind saying it just right,
> > > just get what has to be said out there in a way that others can work
> > with,
> > > and over time, you improve from myriad and confusing sources of
> feedback.
> > >
> > > Second time I spent most of my time reading over horrible 
translations
> of
> > > thesis for a conference from Russian to English and fixing them 
within
> > > heavy
> > > constraints while my wife had to be darn sure our two month old
> survived,
> > > which required her to deal with a tough old nanny, curious Russian
> > > pediatricians with ideas she did not love and had to argue with,
> > > and the ability to elbow her way to hot water in a dorm full of 
folks
> > with
> > > sharp elbows and tongues.
> > >
> > > Pushkin is said to have said that the best way to learn a foreign
> > language
> > > is in bed. That presupposes various linguistic and non-linguistic 
forms
> > of
> > > interaction with a fair amount of emotional infusion, but the idea
> seems
> > > right.
> > >
> > > Wonder what Plato would have advised?
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:35 PM, David Kellogg <
> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tony, David:
> > >>
> > >> Last night in my grad seminar, we discussed "the belly button is
> bigger
> > >> than the belly". This is a Korean expression we use as shorthand to
> > refer
> > > to
> > >> a whole range of problems, from quite theoretical to very 
practical,
> > > which
> > >> have in common the underlying difficulty that context is always
> richer,
> > > more
> > >> complex, and more difficult to understand than any text which 
attempts
> > to
> > >> realize it even though when we present it in the form of a picture 
or
> a
> > >> video or a Korean text it looks extremely straightforward.
> > >>
> > >> For example, when the teacher wants to teach something like "Hi, 
I'm
> > >> Zeeto", the teacher needs to use a picture of Zeeto introducing
> himself
> > > to
> > >> some non-Zeeto, Typically this involves getting the children's
> > attention,
> > >> giving them information (e.g. "This is Zeeto") and then checking
> > >> understanding ("Who?"). Even if we break it up into very small
> > > utterances,
> > >> the learning "belly button" is rather bigger than the teaching 
belly.
> > >>
> > >> The same problem happens when we want the children to repeat. (Now,
> YOU
> > > are
> > >> Zeeto. Listen, Zeeto! "Hi, I'm Zeeto". Repeat, Zeeto!) and when we
> want
> > > to
> > >> check understanding. (we end up saying things like "What did Zeeto 
say
> > > when
> > >> he wanted to introduce himself to Julie?"). We are always left a
> little
> > > like
> > >> the little Saint Augustine asking Saint Monica, 'Mommy, what does
> "mean"
> > >> mean?'
> > >>
> > >> I suppose it all goes back to Plato's problem. The belly button
> problem
> > > is
> > >> really all about the attempt to understand a more powerful system
> > > (context)
> > >> with a less powerful one (text). And so too is the cognitivist
> approach
> > > to
> > >> any quintessentially social phenomenon. The answer to "Who am I?" 
is
> > > really
> > >> not "Well, who is asking the question?" but rather "Who wants to 
know
> > and
> > >> why?"
> > >>
> > >> I think for that reason David Ki's response, which is basically to
> stand
> > >> outside Tony's question in such a way that it unasks itself, is 
really
> > > the
> > >> right one. But Tony probably wants something more heuristic, 
something
> > > that
> > >> stands inside the question and explodes it.
> > >>
> > >> The two most common verbs a learner of Portuguese probably needs 
(and
> > > needs
> > >> to distinguish) are "ser" and "estar". But they are neither things 
we
> do
> > >> frequently nor things we rarely do and they are neither mental 
verbs
> nor
> > >> action verbs. More, the all important distinction between them 
cannot
> be
> > >> understood as any of the above.
> > >>
> > >> David Kellogg
> > >> Seoul National University of Education
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- On Mon, 5/24/10, Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=twhitson@UDel.Edu>>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=twhitson@UDel.Edu>
> >
> > >> Subject: [xmca] Cognitivist theory & language learning
> > >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:12 AM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'm using a variety of tools for learning Portuguese, including 
dubbed
> > > and
> > >> subtitled movies as well as books written for instruction. In one 
of
> > > these,
> > >> following a list of sixteen first-conjugation verbs, I find this
> helpful
> > >> advice:
> > >>
> > >> ====================
> > >> In order to learn these verbs, try to first memorize them by 
putting
> the
> > >> verbs into lists or categories. Can you divide the above list into
> > > "things
> > >> that I do often" and "things that I rarely do"? How about dividing 
the
> > > list
> > >> into "action verbs" and "mental verbs"? Whatever categories you 
chose
> to
> > >> organize the verbs, the important thing is that you find a way to
> > process
> > >> and arrange these new pieces of information in your brain. Once you
> have
> > >> done this, it will be easier to retrieve the information later.
> > >>
> > >> (Source: Ferreira, Fernanda L. The Everything Learning Brazilian
> > > Portuguese
> > >> Book: Speak, Write and Understand Portuguese in No Time. Avon, 
Mass.:
> > > Adams
> > >> Media, 2007., p. 111)
> > >> ====================
> > >>
> > >> I see this as an extraordinarily clear and straightforward 
expression
> of
> > > a
> > >> view of learning that I find quite common in education circles. I
> expect
> > >> that I'll be using it as a clear example of wrong-headed thinking
> about
> > >> learning.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe others will find similar value in this example; but I'm also
> > > writing
> > >> to ask if anyone has equally clear and succinct examples to share 
that
> > > could
> > >> be used to show what's wrong with this, and how to understand 
learning
> > > more
> > >> appropriately, instead ... things that would be clear and easily
> > > accessible
> > >> for people in education for whom the cognitivist approach seems to 
be
> > > right?
> > >>
> > >> Muito obrigado,
> > >>
> > >> Tony Whitson
> > >> UD School of Education
> > >> NEWARK  DE  19716
> > >>
> > >> twhitson@udel.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca