[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Somatic Semantics, or, Speech as a LOWER Psychological Function

Dear David Kellogg:
The spoken word registers as a vocal sound and as a representative of a referred-to thing. We are affected by the sound subliminally and according to our fundamental nature. We are affected by the referential aspect of spoken words consciously and according to our learned associations. What we are conscious of can be examined, questioned and deliberately altered. That which affects us subliminally is beyond our ken and unavailable for alteration. What you call, "higher mental functions" are founded upon our "psychological functions". The unquestioned affects upon us of our vocal sounds supply us with a sense of the ultimate meanings of the things we consider consciously. 
	That humans evolved in disparate physical environments accounts for  
the emergence of our different languages/cultures. Water in Eskimo- 
land was a different substance than water in the Amazon, hence  
different emotional reactions to it and therefore, different words  
for it.

	I hear we are 98.6% genetically the same as chimpanzees. Much of our  
foundation is the same. We are supposed to be 30% genetically the  
same as yeast	

	Were it not for the emotional-feeling effect of the sounds of our  
words, we would not be able to think of things in the abstract and  
maintain a sense of their meanings, (their affects upon us). While we  
are busy        thinking with words about things, at the same time we  
are experiencing our reactions to to the sounds of the words for  
those things. Consequently, we associate the thing referred to with  
the effect we experience          from the referrer, - word -. People  
who are multilingual report that they see the world differently  
depending upon what language they are using.

		Joseph Gilbert

On Nov 21, 2010, at 5:28 PM, David Kellogg wrote:


Ulvi:


Here's an example of the distinction between higher and lower  
mental functions, and why it's so important.

There are really TWO aspects to Joseph Gilbert's "somatic  
semantics", that is, his idea that bodily emotions are in some  
important sense fundamental to sense making.

a) The idea that emotion (including interpersonal emotion and  
social emotion) is part of the base, part of the substratum, part  
of the phylogenetic, sociogenetic and even ontogenetic origins of  
speech, and in the same way essential to speech in microgenesis  
(everyday use).

b) The idea that this emotion in turn has an individual,  
biological, corporeal substratum in the human body, hence the  
preverbal examples of "mmm" and "mama" and so on.

Now, my position is that I accept a) but only if we completely turn  
it upside down and take the social, cultural, and interpersonal as  
the indispensable base and the individual, biological,  
intrapersonal as the derivative, and thus optional, superstructure.

This accounts for the linguistic variation with culture (which  
Gilbert's theory in its biological form cannot do). But it also  
means we have to completely reject b). If we accept b) then we are  
reducing speech to a LOWER psychological function..

Actually, there are two different words for "psychological" and  
"mental" in Russian, but the distinction is slightly different  
things from the distinction we have in English. One of them is  
психические, simply a transliteration of "psychological",  
and it means what it does in English. But the other is the other  
means something like "intellectual" or even "learned" as opposed to  
unlearned, uncultured, non-socialized. So it already has in it the  
idea of a higher mental function.

Take a look at this Conversation Analysis data from one of my  
grads. You can see that the EMOTIONAL substratum is essential to  
understanding the whole dialogue. But you can also see that the  
ways in which the corporeal body participates in this meaning are  
really trivial, and subordinated to "intellectual", "learned" ways  
of meaning making

The English teacher is talking in English to the kids after a class  
talent show.

T: I was impressed by(.) your acting,(.)°your drum.°
S: bum bu bum bum bum


The kids respond with a sound that is purely biological, and which  
could be understood by anyone, even someone who understands no  
English. It's a lower level mental function, but it's in RESPONSE  
to a compliment delivered (using the passive voice) in a foreign  
language.

T: °oh, you were almost like (.) a specialist.°=
Ss: @##$%%
T: = Ohh~! It's cool I think.


The teacher wants the kids to feel good abou their performance. But  
she realizes that the word "specialist" doesn't really convey what  
she wants, or rather, it conveys what SHE wants but it doesn't  
convey what the kids want to hear.

So she uses the word "cool". Now, of course, the word "cool" does  
have a physical substratum, just like the word "hot". But that  
physical substratum comes from understanding its ideological  
superstructure, not vice versa.

"Cool" is an obvious example of complexive thinking: it includes  
many many things, including, as we shall see, its opposite, or at  
least the opposite of what the teacher means.

Ss: @#$%#
 S4: >Oh(.)uh(.)uh(.)< I. I like(.) uh(.) Kim Jiseong's dance.


S4 is referring to a mildly pornographic dance by a boy  
impersonating the sexy pop singer Miss A in the sixth grade. The  
teacher is shocked.

Ss: huh↓(laughs)
  T: do you LIKE it?
Ss: [we like it.]
       [hahaha]
       [ahh!↓]
T: huh. °never mind.°


The teacher is aghast because of the sexual suggestiveness of the  
dance. But what intrigues the kids is not this (they have no real  
experience of sex but they have a lot of experience of sexual  
suggestiveness and they are quite blase to its meaning as a  
result). What intrigues them is the gender bending implicit in the  
parody of the pop singer, Miss A.

S7: °mr. a°
T: mr. a (giggles) not miss a. [ok ]
Ss:                                          [hahahaha]


It often happens that kids are exposed to PARODY before they are  
really familiar with what is being parodied. A very warm seedbed  
for PREJUDICE. It is one of the rather confusing aspects of being  
young, and one of the things that makes young people natural  
recruits for racist, reactionary and sexist movements.

T: ok(.) I really want to ask him(.) why he wore:: kind of short  
pants >°for women.°< =

S4: [Hat ppaensch ibjana (He wore hot pants)]
Ss: [haha ](giggles and laughter)
T: [= ° I don't understand.°]
Ss: [@#$%$#]


Now, you can see from the somewhat precious Conversation Analysis  
notation that I force my poor grads to use that Conversation  
Analysis really tends to emphasize a lot of the PHYSICAL aspects of  
speech (volume, intake of breath, etc.).

Between you and me (and Halliday, who agrees), I find this rather  
unfortunate, because it seems to me that key to understanding this  
extract as a CHAIN, as a COMPLEX, as a series of EMOTIONAL  
responses and responses to responses is not the biological, lower  
mental function of the speech but on the contrary its cultural and  
sociological value.

Volosinov says "Individual consciousness is not the architect of  
the ideological superstructure, but only a tenant loding in the  
social edifice of ideological signs (Marxism and the Philosophy of  
Language, p. 13)."

David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education



--- On Sat, 11/20/10, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com>  
wrote:


From: Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [xmca] Sorry for not modifying the subject: Higher  
mental functions = higher psychological processes = executive  
functions ?

To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2010, 3:17 PM



On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:21 AM, ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>  
wrote:

2010/11/21 ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>


With my apologizes for my ignorance, I have a question:


What we meet as higher mental functions are "almost" the same  
with higher

psychological processes YES




and both are "almost" the same as executive

functions.  NOT Right

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENTS


Ulvi


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




--
Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


__________________________________________
_____
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

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