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

Re: [xmca] meaning potential and cultural artifacts



Andy
Since you have a very rich notion of concept, could you just expand a little
for us?
Carol

On 25 August 2011 07:09, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> As I see it, when Vygotsky says that "a word is a sign for a concept," he
> is at the same time making it clear to us what he means by word.
> Andy
>
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
>> David
>> Thank you for the carefully considered reply.  Firstly, let me wish you
>> the
>> best for your new job.  Eight different TESOL courses is not funny, and
>> probably not a joy either. (I'll get some more on the side.)
>>
>> As we know, people whose language is not written down (and probably
>> illiterate people too) have no notion of a sentence--that is a construct
>> of
>> written language. And we still mess it up.  Our Bantu languages are
>> agglutinating and the missionaries who wrote down Zulu got this right, and
>> so  you get immensely long word-sentences.  The Sotho missionaries  got it
>> wrong and made the writing disjunctive, and so all the concords and so on
>> are written separately (making it much easier for me to learn).
>>
>> What LSV thought a word was is a matter for speculation.  I think he meant
>> what we think a word is, because of its closeness to a concept. And
>> because
>> the multilayered analysis (phonology, morphology, syntax,semantics,
>> pragmatics and discourse analysis) was not available to him then.
>>
>> Have a good day David and we'll be thinking of you next week.
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 August 2011 23:08, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh, I'm not in the business of tearing people apart, Carol. I'm not in
>>> the
>>> business of child language any more, either, you know: starting next week
>>> I
>>> will be teaching eight different TESOL courses, sixteen hours a week.
>>>
>>> Each one has been planned to the minute for me, so that any native
>>> speaker
>>> of English can get off an airplane and take up where I left off. I am now
>>> much more of an academic proletarian than a polymath. So this is really
>>> something of a last hurrah for me.
>>>
>>> We know that Vygotsky himself uses the word "word" in every different
>>> ways:
>>> sometimes he means "utterance" (e.g. "In the beginning was the word" and
>>> "the word was made flesh" from the Gospel of Saint John) and sometimes he
>>> means an orthographic word (e.g. the words "bik", "mur", "lag" and "cev"
>>> which are, at the beginning of the experiment, really ONLY words by
>>> virtue
>>> of their orthography).
>>>
>>> I think what I said was that I myself wondered if we could call "That on
>>> that" words, and if so how many words we should call it. What is and what
>>> isn't a word varies from language to language, just as what is and what
>>> isn't a sentence does.
>>>
>>> So for example in English bound morphemes such as "-s" to denote the
>>> plural
>>> and "-ed" to denote the past tense are not considered words and "a" and
>>> "the" are considered words (Microsoft Word is treats contractions as a
>>> single word).
>>>
>>> But the Korean equivalents of the indefinite articles "a" and "the" are
>>> not
>>> considered words and not written as words. Actually, I think it was
>>> Gleitman
>>> who discovered that English speaking children do not consider them words
>>> until they start to go to school.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that functionally "That on that" is a word. But it seems
>>> to me that therein lies the whole problem: functionally, it is ONE word
>>> and
>>> not three, and so "that" can't be a functional word even though
>>> structurally
>>> it must be, because such an utterance has to be synthesized.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is another instance of what Vygotsky calls the contradiction
>>> between the child's understanding (which is functional, and holistic) and
>>> the child's expression (which is structural, and synthetic). Vygotsky
>>> tries
>>> to replicate Stern's experiment with the photograph of the men in prison
>>> and
>>> finds that the children understand at a very different level than they
>>> express, and can role play a much more complex story than they can tell
>>> in
>>> words.
>>>
>>> This kind of "sandwich" of two somewhat "hard" pieces of language
>>> ("that")
>>> and one "soft" piece of language ("on")  is highly suggestive to me: it
>>> reminds me of the syllabic structure of "that"
>>> (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant)
>>> and also the typical structure of a verbalized action
>>> (Subject-Verb-Object).
>>>
>>> It seems to me that what the child MIGHT be thinking is that a sentence
>>> is
>>> a kind of mega-word, and that in the child's mind the language is fractal
>>> in
>>> structure, with the same basic hard-soft-hard units that his or her own
>>> actions have, at every level we care to think about.
>>>
>>> And of course that is sort of true, and can explain what is perhaps the
>>> core unit of discourse for children: question, answer, response. Later,
>>> children might even apply this kind of reasoning to the relationship
>>> between
>>> independent clauses and dependent ones.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>> GS-TESOL
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 8/24/11, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] meaning potential and cultural artifacts
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011, 11:38 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me to go back to "That on that."  What on earth do you mean those
>>> aren't words?  I bet the little boy was shrieking AND pointing.  Either
>>> way--that is referential. *"That {Those Coco-pops} on{ top of} that
>>> {washing powder}"* and both the parents knew exactly what he* meant.*
>>>  Can
>>> you *not* mean in such a situation? That little boy knew what he
>>> meant--as
>>> he could have said it in two other languages, very articulately.  I
>>> realize
>>> that David is an articulate polymath who will probably tear me to pieces
>>> (and yes David, of course I know those are grammatical words--so what,
>>> *in
>>> context*?)  This is me speaking for the child language people.
>>> Carol
>>>
>>> On 24 August 2011 11:14, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vygotsky says that signification-znachenie-**semantic value is simply
>>>> the
>>>> most stable (the most "external", socially ratified, self-identical)
>>>> form
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> a much larger set of word values he calls sense-smysl-pragmatic value.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this APPEARS to contradict his use of sense in another sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He
>>>
>>>
>>>> ALSO uses sense to mean inner speech, something that is
>>>> highly psychological, something which feels extremely intimate and
>>>> immediate, and not at all like a vast nebulous set of potential
>>>> meanings.
>>>>
>>>> However, when we look at sense not as a single individual sense but at
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> sum total of all individual senses in a speech community, we can see
>>>> that
>>>> the set of all senses in which a given signification is deployed in a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> whole
>>>
>>>
>>>> speech community is going to be very close to the meaning potential that
>>>> the signification of that word has for each individual. (This is why
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> so interested in etymology and historical linguistics!)
>>>>
>>>> But to see this, we really need three completely non-Saussurean
>>>> assumptions:
>>>>
>>>> a) Real meaning and potential meaning are NOT like "form" and "content";
>>>> they are NOT mutually exclusive: potential meaning is simply an
>>>> idealized
>>>> set of real meanings, just as real meaning is an instantiated potential.
>>>>
>>>> b) A speech community is an historical community; meaning potential must
>>>> include the past of a word and also its future.
>>>>
>>>> c) Meaning is, in the final analysis, always reducible to sense and not
>>>>
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> signification. The material reality of language is not idealized langue
>>>> but concrete, material, mass parole.
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>
>>>>  --- On Mon, 8/22/11, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] meaning potential and cultural artifacts
>>>> To: "David Kellogg" <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>>> Cc: "Culture ActivityeXtended Mind" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2011, 9:24 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, very interesting. Not sure I was saying what you said I was, but no
>>>> matter, very
>>>> interesting.
>>>> It made me think of this, not even picking up and using, or breathing
>>>> on,
>>>> just looking at "perceiving."
>>>>
>>>> "A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
>>>>
>>>>
>>> contemplates
>>>
>>>
>>>> it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
>>>> — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (The Little Prince)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Kellogg <
>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike:
>>>>
>>>> Leo van Lier, who currently edits the Modern Language Journal, uses
>>>> Gibsonian affordance to talk about meaning potential. His favorite
>>>>
>>>>
>>> example
>>>
>>>
>>>> is his own son, who grew up speaking Quechua and Spanish.
>>>>
>>>> When they moved to California, the little boy was around five or so, and
>>>> refused to speak English, the way children often will when exposed to a
>>>> completely new language. One day, van Lier was going through the local
>>>> Safeway with the boy in a shopping cart, and a box of Coco-Puffs. They
>>>> passed a similar shopping cart also containing Coco-puffs, and the
>>>> little
>>>> boy stood up and shrieked "That on that!"
>>>>
>>>> His first English sentence. Of course, it's really only a potential
>>>> sentence. There is no grammatical subject, and no finite verb, and no
>>>> predicator. In fact, there is some question in my mind as to whether
>>>> what
>>>>
>>>>
>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>> find in his sentence can really be considered words.
>>>>
>>>> He has a demonstrative ("that") and a spatial preposition ("on"). These
>>>>
>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> considered orthographic words in English. But in many languages,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> including
>>>
>>>
>>>> Korean and Chinese, demonstratives and prepositions appear as
>>>>
>>>>
>>> dependencies
>>>
>>>
>>>> of other words, the way that "~s" appears on the end of an English noun
>>>>
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> suggest plurality and "~ed" appears to indicate tense. That is, they are
>>>> particles that have no real "signification" but which do contain
>>>> "sense".
>>>> They are potential, but not actual, meanings.
>>>>
>>>> The usual way we refer to this is rather structural, and always reminds
>>>>
>>>>
>>> me
>>>
>>>
>>>> of early boarding on airplanes and the parts of the train that I never
>>>>
>>>>
>>> get
>>>
>>>
>>>> to sit in. These are "closed class" words (that is, they are few, they
>>>> cannot really be invented or retired from the language, and they consist
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> more sense than signification).
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the "open class" words (e.g. "shopping cart", "Coco Puffs", and
>>>> so
>>>> on), they have almost no inherent meaning potential of their own but
>>>>
>>>>
>>> depend,
>>>
>>>
>>>> parasitically, on the meaning potential to be found in surrounding
>>>> affordances.
>>>>
>>>> Where these affordances are not available (e.g. when we find ourselves
>>>> in
>>>> the middle of connected text) we look, as van Lier's son did, to what
>>>> Malinowski calls the context of the culture rather than the context of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>>  So we find that we CAN understand Heideggerian expressions like
>>>> "that-ness". We even have a vague sense of an association between "on"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and a
>>>
>>>
>>>> two-dimensional plane as opposed to "in" and a three-dimensional space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It
>>>
>>>
>>>> is just as Wallace Stevens says: when you place a jar on a hill, it has
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> knack of surrounding itself with signification.
>>>>
>>>> But what Mike is pointing to is the opposite. We may TRY to set up, not
>>>>
>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>
>>>> a hill, but in a desert somewhere, or in a bell jar, a signification
>>>> that cannot ever, in any situation, really be realized (e.g. "Colorless
>>>> green ideas sleep furiously..." which I often think of enviously when I
>>>> cannot sleep).
>>>>
>>>> But there is not, and never can be, any such thing as meaning potential
>>>> without realizability. As soon as you moisten the meaning potential of
>>>> signification with the humidity of human breath, you will find colorful
>>>> green shoots of sense.
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you can see that as soon as that happens, teh
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 8/22/11, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>> Subject: [xmca] meaning potential and cultural artifacts
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Date: Monday, August 22, 2011, 8:30 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am changing the header because the activity/practice thread was
>>>>
>>>>
>>> clogging
>>>
>>>
>>>> my computer. I will respond to that separately.
>>>>
>>>> Here I want to comment on David K's discussion of meaning potential and
>>>> cultural artifacts. David is putting into technical language an idea I
>>>>
>>>>
>>> did
>>>
>>>
>>>> not have technical terms for, and have not used in print before, but
>>>>
>>>>
>>> often
>>>
>>>
>>>> use when teaching. My way of discussing meaning potential was to like an
>>>> artifact to one of our local desert flowers. It contained the dormant
>>>>
>>>>
>>> seeds
>>>
>>>
>>>> of a beautiful flower that cast off many seeds, but most of the year, or
>>>> years if need be, it was a tiny, shriveled, obscure
>>>> bit of the local ecology. But when picked up and put to use by a human
>>>> being, it came to life, and swelled, and, perhaps, cast of seeds,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> depending
>>>
>>>
>>>> upon what awaited it.
>>>>
>>>> I previously thought of this in connection with Jame's Gibson's ideas of
>>>> affordance. With rare exceptions, Gibson was concerned with
>>>> natural/physical
>>>> constraints and affordances, but I was seeking a way to understand the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> role
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>> cultural constraints, not biological ones. I think that meaning
>>>> potential
>>>> and cultural affordances might be connected concepts.
>>>>
>>>> Does that resonate, DavidKe, or am I on the wrong path?
>>>> mike
>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>  http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "*It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of
>>> work
>>> to do."*
>>> Visiting Lecturer
>>> Wits School of Education
>>> Research Fellow
>>> Linguistics Dept: Unisa
>>> ______________________________**____________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>> ______________________________**____________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/**smpp/title~db=all~content=
> **g932564744<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744>
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>



-- 
 "*It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work
to do."*
Visiting Lecturer
Wits School of Education
Research Fellow
Linguistics Dept: Unisa
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca