Re: [xmca] The Ubiquity of Unicorns: conversation

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Yep, that article is in a volume of his writings published in the prior
millenium by Sharpe. Will take a look at it again. Thanks for the tip.
mike

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

>
> Hey Mike:
>
> Thanks for obliging the thoughts.  Sometimes communication is not a
> conversation
>
> I am taking a look at the literature and attempting to understand a
> connection or lack thereof.  Ar you familiar with a translation of Luria's
> article entitled, "The development of child's writing." ?     My
> understading is that he discusses writing development in the context of the
> combined motor method.  I found this reference in Rocco's chapter "Parralles
> between Alexander Luria and Emilia Ferreiro".       The chapter is included
> in the compilation of Literacy in Human Development edited by Marta Kohl de
> Oliveira & Jann Valsiner.
>
> have a great weekend,
> eric
>
>
>   *mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>*
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> 11/05/2009 07:22 PM
> Please respond to lchcmike; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>    Activity"
>
>         To:        "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
>         cc:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>         Subject:        Re: [xmca] The Ubiquity of Unicorns: conversation
>
>
>
> Eric. (not sure if this is a part of a conversation or only stringing out
> of
> words).
>
> The best source on combined motor method is Nature of Human Conflicts. The
> short form is in the Autobio of A.R. Luria.
>
> This may have been translated into the language of reflexes later as a
> means
> of self preservation, I do not recall such, but it DID become part of a
> bitter fight involving Pavolians, perhaps discussed in the Handbook of
> Soviet Psych.
>
> My own take is that the key was to combine voluntary actions in a
> coordinated system involving language as one component; the actions
> combined could be, for example, holding one hand still and squeezing a bulb
> with another. Once these were coordinated in response to a variety of (say)
> words, a particular word, which the investigator had reason to believe the
> subject did NOT want to react to unusually, but really had reason to hide
> any special relation to (such as blood of a person he had killed that got
> on
> his handkerchief) was introduced to see if it caused
> the *selective disruption* of the previously coordinated actions.
>
> This method was used in a variety of ways including criminal
> investigations,
> which gave ARL a rep as an inventor of the lie detector,
> but the motivation was of general theoretical import about the conditions
> under which one could know what another person was thinking.
>
> It has been, without attribution, using the same logic, used for purposes
> as broad as figuring out what sorts of thing a newborn baby does and does
> not respond to differentially and what in particular a child does not
> understand about how to read.
>
> How it fits into the discussion of utterances as units of analysis beats
> me!!
> mike
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Peter Feigenbaum <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > Andy--
> >
> > I'm sorry at having misrepresented some of your positions. In my zeal to
> > squeeze as
> > much from this discussion in as short a time as possible (during work
> > hours, no less),
> > I became tired and sloppy. You have been patient with me by continuing to
> > put up
> > resistance to my ideas for several go-arounds now, and for that I'm
> > indebted to you.
> >
> > Before wrapping up this thread, I must tell you--and everyone else on
> this
> > listserve--
> > that as a result of this discussion, I have come to a valuable
> realization
> > about the
> > relationship between word-meaning and utterance that had not dawned on me
> > before.
> > It has led me to revise my proposal, and if you would all do me the
> favor,
> > I would like
> > to run this new idea by you.
> >
> > Below is a revised diagram; you will see that "conversation" has been
> > removed and
> > replaced by "monologue". The modification may be small, but the practical
> > and
> > conceptual consequences of this change loom large.
> >
> > (Embedded image moved to file: pic07433.jpg)
> > From the perspective of an individual child who is acquiring language and
> > communicative competence, the sequence on the "word" side (vocal
> activity)
> > is now more coherent and internally consistent:
> > words--sentences--monologues. The
> > movement on the "meaning" side (semantic activity) remains relatively
> > unchanged.
> >
> > If we accept James Moffett's (1968) definition of a monologue as an
> > extended turn at
> > talk in a conversation, then we are also simultaneously defining the
> > monologue as a
> > single *utterance unit*, a la Bahktin. (Incidentally, if you do not
> already
> > own a copy of
> > Moffett's "Teaching the universe of discourse", Boston: Houghton Mifflin
> > Company,
> > drop everything and run out right now and buy it!  It is a must-read for
> > anyone with an
> > interest in a carefully and thoughfully conceived K-12 curriculum for
> > teaching discourse
> > skills. Forgive me if this is old news. But I digress . . . .)
> >
> > What this change does is to break apart the one-to-one correspondence
> > between a
> > *sentence* and an utterance unit--a relationship that developmental
> > psychologists (who
> > took it from linguists) have adopted, implemented, and taken for granted
> in
> > their analyses
> > of children's speech development. I, too, was wedded to that relationship
> > until this
> > thread exposed it to the light. What I have been assuming was an
> utterance
> > unit is really
> > the *microstructure* of an utterance unit--if you adhere to Bahktin!
>  Oops!
> > My bad!
> >
> > This reformulation of the relationship between an utterance unit and the
> > sentence may
> > well remove the confusion that has been clouding the issue of how word
> > meaning might
> > be applied to actual speech data. I have long felt that the linguists'
> > focus on the sentence
> > has been misplaced, and that the focus ought to be on the relationship
> > between the
> > sentence and the interlocutors who are exchanging it with each other.
> This
> > formulation just
> > might do it.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > P.S.--I almost forgot: As promised, I am including a manuscript version
> of
> > my chapter
> > in the Robbins and Stetsenko volume, "Voices within Vygotsky's
> > non-classical psychology:
> > Past, present, future (pp. 162-174). New York: Nova Science Publishers,
> > (2002).
> >
> > (See attached file: Private Speech--Cornerstone of Vygotskys
> Theory_Robbins
> > & Stetsenko_16October2001.pdf)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >             Andy Blunden
> >             <ablunden@mira.ne
> >             t>                                                         To
> >             Sent by:                  "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >             xmca-bounces@webe         <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >             r.ucsd.edu
> cc
> >
> >                                                                   Subject
> >              11/04/2009 07:17          Re: [xmca] The Ubiquity of
> >              PM                        Unicorns: conversation
> >
> >
> >             Please respond to
> >             ablunden@mira.net
> >             ; Please respond
> >                    to
> >              "eXtended Mind,
> >                 Culture,
> >                 Activity"
> >             <xmca@weber.ucsd.
> >                   edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As a teenager one of my heroes was the mathematician Galois.
> > Without giving his life story, he died as he lived. He stood
> > up in the mess hall and proposed a toast to the Emperor.
> > Someone thought he was being ironic, challenged him to a
> > duel and shot him.
> >
> > I will be very brief if I can, Peter, just taking up some
> > misunderstandings and going to the 1) and 2) at the end.
> >
> > It is a contradiction in terms to say "conversation is a
> > unit". You can say "a conversation" is a unit, in which case
> > your comments about the Gettyberg Address can be multiplied
> > by 10. I think you must mean the subject matter of study is
> > conversation, I don't know. Still, many people go on about
> > "activity" being a unit of analysis, which is just as
> > senseless. [See Wertsch, "Vygotsky and the Social Formation
> > of Mind," p. 202 though Wertsch is confused too.] What does
> > "unit" mean to you?
> >
> > I never said "conversation doesn't require an audience or
> > addressee." No comment possible.
> >
> > I never said the Gettysberg address *cannot* be broken down.
> > I just said that it is an Utterance, just as David
> > explained. You can break anything down until you get to
> > quarks and strings, the point is: what is the unit for the
> > specific problem you are trying to solve? The Gettysberg
> > address was an act or a move in a war. An utterance.
> >
> > [I confess to being a Bakhtin novice, but I do think that
> > the  frame or genre of an utterance is part of the utterance
> > and is necessary to understand it and is part of the unit.
> > If delivered at a football match, the Gettyberg Address
> > would not be the same.]
> >
> > Finally on the Q&A at the end.
> >
> > You say: "private speech is used essentially to *comment
> > upon* ongoing action, wheras in the later stages it is used
> > essentially to *plan and regulate* ongoing action," which
> > tells me that the unit of private speech includes the action
> > it comments on and regulates. That's what you say. It is H2O
> > and if you try to study the H without the O you will never
> > get to the nature of the water.
> >
> > You say: "they are included in the analysis." Of course. I
> > get that. Like someone who studies both H and O, but not H2O.
> >
> > thanks for your patience, Peter.
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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