Re: [xmca] intonation and meaning

[Andy Jocuns <jocunsa@gmail.com>]

There is an interesting case of intonation going on in American English
right now. Phrase final intonation that was initially, and still is, used
with tag questions is showing up all over the place. Some have associated
this use with folks from California, however, I hear it here in Seattle in
particular among undergrads and it sticks out more when they are telling
narratives. Perhaps this is sub cultural language play, yet if that were the
only story one would expect to find it only among participants of the sub
culture, right? I guess you could say its a *way of speaking*, but at the
same time it also alludes to the arbitrary nature of sociolinguistic signs.
There is also something inherently metacommunicative about intonation that
is used in languages that don't code for it in a larger grammatical
(lexical/semcantic) sense.

andy

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:

> Forgive me for changing the subject line, but we're never going to find
> this thread years from now when the issue comes up yet again under a heading
> like "plus times minus"!
>
> I recall reading VN Voloshinov, who was a close collaborator of Bakhtin,
> and B. himself on a similar issue, using of course examples from their
> native Russian. One point was that through intonation (plus context, plus
> cultural background knowledge and dispositions) a word can mean an awful lot
> of different things, if not anything at all. Some examples were of
> expletives, and some nice literary ones from Dostoevsky. But this was not
> taken as a feature of Russian, language or culture, but of discourse itself.
>
> Contrary to one of our common cultural ideologies about language, words as
> such do not "have meanings". They have distributions of usage in relation to
> one another and to various situations, which one can interpret as
> meaning-potentials or probabilities of being used for one meaning or another
> in different situations. Situations are rather endlessly variable, but many
> of them are similar and do seem to recur because of the way our societies
> are built. So there is some stability and predictability. Humor, and
> creative usage in poetry, among other practices, play with and against our
> sense of these probabilities. And so do such phenomena as irony, sarcasm,
> and wit.
>
> We always have to interpretively construct some narrower range of likely
> meanings-in-context for any word (or phrase, or even sentence) from the
> wider range of available possibilities. Just how we do this, and how the
> texts we construct or the utterances we produce provide clues to help in the
> interpretive process is a fascinating study (discourse or text semantics).
> it is a complex, perhaps truly emergent, process juggling a bottom-up
> element (the meaning-potentials of words, phrases, etc.) with a top-down
> element (contexts, intertexts, whole texts or conversations, episodes, ...
> sentences, phrases, etc.) to produce what may even sometimes be
> unpredictable meanings-made.
>
> All languages do this. it is one of the wonders of language-communication
> (though really language never operates alone, there are always other
> semiotics and practices and types of context also in play). Culturally, some
> cultures and subcultures emphasize language "play" -- going somewhat against
> the obvious or most probable interpretations as in jokes, wit, irony, etc.
> -- more than others.  Some cultures value this more than others. It might
> even be true that cultures where there are oppressive conditions mitigating
> against more direct forms of expression (e.g. Jews living with
> anti-semitism, African-Americans under racism, Soviet-era dissidents or just
> ordinary KGB-fearing people) are more likely to develop in this direction.
>
> A very interesting question is the more specific one of the role of
> intonation in modifying the probabilities of interpretation of the
> underlying lexical words. This may vary across languages as such. I don't
> know if there are comparative studies. Discourse intonation theory exists,
> but is not too well developed, I would say. (For Englsh, key work by
> Halliday and later David Brasil, and some still later things on radio
> voices, including I think some work by Theo van Leeuwen?) It is really hard
> to train your ear to hear what the acoustic intonation actually is vs. what
> you think it has to be. Note that this applies normally to the intonational
> contour across a whole utterance, and not word by word (except for one-word
> utterances). And it is not the same as word-level tone as in Chinese or
> Swedish, though it has to take that into account across longer stretches.
>
> Many effects we can produce in English, and presumably from our examples in
> Russian or Yiddish, can also be produced with shifts in vocabulary or
> grammar, or perhaps the ordering of phrases in time. Or also by other vocal
> inflections, such as extending the length of vowels or clipping consonants
> or palatalization, or rhythm changes, rather than pitch variation.  I don't
> know whether some languages may emphasize some of these devices more than
> others, but it seems likely. Do very intonationally complex tone languages
> (where word and phrase level intonations change core meaning) like Cantonese
> prefer non-intonational means for expressing irony or indicating that
> something is meant to be taken humorously?
>
> JAY.
>
> BTW, I love the Yeah, yeah or Yeah, right! example.
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>
>  Eugene,
>>
>> I still wonder if sense through intonation is more tied to cultural
>> capital more than language.  One might for instance think (and observe) that
>> English in and of itself doesn't make itself susceptible the this type of
>> communication through intonation.  Then you watch a few episodes of Monty
>> Python and you realize how many meanings the word "What" has.  Just as an
>> example, it is hard to imagine anybody who has not actually heard the phrase
>> understand the meaning of "One never expects the Spanish Inquisition" - and
>> yet it is a touchstone for an entire generation.  You use the phrase as a
>> way of communicating very complex ideas and common ties in a single
>> sentence, but somebody who is not from a particular population would have no
>> idea what it means.  Is there something in the English language that makes
>> this unique and possible?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Eugene Matusov
>> Sent: Sat 5/2/2009 3:07 PM
>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>> Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; 'Zoi Philippakos'; 'PIG'
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Michael, Tony, and everybody-
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Michael that probably any language allows intonational
>> ambiguity and disruption of the semantic structure and affordance. However,
>> since Russian has much more freedom of the word order than, let's say,
>> English does, -- for example, in Russian, question is raised entirely by
>> intonation rather than by re-ordering words, like in English, -- arguably
>> intonation is more powerful for making meaning in Russian than in English
>> (more research is needed).
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, as Tony seems to suggest, reliance on intonational meaning making
>> through the intonation-semantics contradiction is very popular in Jewish
>> culture both in Russia and in the US (and, probably, elsewhere). Let me
>> share a typical Russian-Jewish joke supporting this claim. Before the
>> President Reagan arrived to Russia in the 1980s to meet with Gorbachov for
>> the first time, Jewish refusniks were called to KGB where they were told,
>> "Reagan has requested to see you. If he asks you about immigration, you must
>> reply, 'President Reagan, we don't go!' [??????, ?? ?? ????!] If you say
>> anything else, you will go to GULAG. Jews, is it clear for you?!" When the
>> Soviet Jewish refusniks met the President Reagan who demanded this meeting,
>> they replied to him with an extreme surprise intonation, "President Reagan,
>> we don't go?! [??????, ?? ?? ?????!]"
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the nature of a language and a culture can increase affordances of
>> ambivalent, carnivalistic use of intonation.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:36 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>
>>
>>
>> But his monologues are for the most part in English - at least these days.
>>  He is the progeny of an interesting group called Borscht Belt comedians
>> (the Borscht Belt was a string of hotels up in the Catskills a few hours
>> outside of New York City).
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Tony Whitson
>> Sent: Sat 5/2/2009 2:13 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, "Jackie Mason" was born Yacov Moshe Maza (for
>> what it's worth).
>>
>> On Sat, 2 May 2009, Michael Glassman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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/>  <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/>  <
>>> 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/>  <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/>  <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/>  <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/>  <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/>  <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/>  <http://www.eset.com/>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ 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/>
>>
>> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
>> 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