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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:31 PST