These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Just to remind of the role of the RH in speech perception and production
(prosody) - so all our verbal communication is a result of interhemispheric
cooperation.
Bella Kotik
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>wrote:
> Do we acknowledge that we are affected by the sounds of the human
> voice? Do the sounds of the phonemes cause reactions in our body-mind? If we
> are, and if they do, then do our reactions to the sounds of our voice affect
> our perceptions of the things to which we verbally refer? If so, what is the
> nature of that effect? What say ye?
>
> Joseph Gilbert
>
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:23 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> We have a problem here in Korea. In order to teach children polite
>> language, which is what they need to communicate with adult strangers,
>> teachers tend to use the polite register in class. That is, instead of
>> saying:
>>
>> T: What is this?
>>
>> They tend to say things like:
>>
>> T: Can you tell me what this is?
>>
>> Now this is quite puzzling from a learner's point of view. First of all,
>> it seems otious, almost fatuous, in its complexity (which is, of course, a
>> form of discourse complexity because it suggests a complex discourse
>> sequence, where the questioner first ascertains whether the hearer can
>> answer and then attempts to find the answer).
>>
>> Secondly, the intonation, which is often the learner's best clue as to the
>> speaker's intention, is not the normal way in which we ask for information
>> using a wh-question in English. Wh-questions normally come DOWN, unless we
>> are asking for old informatoin ("What did you say this was?").
>>
>> Thirdly, the word order seems wrong and if the learner attempts to dissect
>> the sentence into usable bits, it will produce wrong question forms ("What
>> this is?"). As we say in Korean, the belly button of genetic origins is
>> overpowering the belly of functional use.
>>
>> Carol remarked that chimps seem to be unable to deal with hypotaxis, and
>> of course we can easily imagine that chimps might be puzzled in exactly this
>> way without drawing any conclusions about the language learning ability of
>> the chimp as opposed to that of the (equally puzzled) Korean child.
>>
>> But her remark raises the interesting question of WHY, in English,
>> wh-questions are bi-functional in precisely this way: they serve on the one
>> hand to mark intra-mental relations by showing how discourse sequences
>> collapse into grammatical ones:
>>
>> T: Is this hat red?
>> S: Yes, it is.
>> T: Is it yours?
>> S: Yes.
>> T: So the had that is red is yours?
>> S: Yes, the hat that is red is mine.
>>
>> (This is the very sentence that Chomsky used as evidence that structural
>> dependency could not be learned!)
>>
>> T: Can you tell me about this?
>> S: Yes.
>> T: What is it?
>> S: It's an apple.
>> T: So you can tell me what this is?
>>
>> I think the answer to this question is easily found in Tomasello, who
>> found it in Vygotsky. Every human function, including complex grammar,
>> appears in the course of human development twice, the first time as the
>> tragedy of complex discouse, and the second time as the comedy of complex
>> grammar.
>>
>> So, to let the cat out of the bag: hypotaxis is indeed more "scientific"
>> than parataxis as a speech form, in much the same way that "hextillion" is
>> more scientific than "six". But this is merely because as a thinking form it
>> is reconstrues an IDENTICAL intellectual content in a more intra-mental,
>> internally complex, and system-related form.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Seoul National University of Education
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
--
Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca