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
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca