"The theory of mind is nothing other than the set of mental concepts which correspond to the expression of the illocutionary force of utterances" (Olson, pg. 270). since this course started, I have been thinking about the idea of 'theory of mind' and what it is. to me, theory of mind sounds a like the ideas of cognition. or it is the recognition of cognition, similar to metacognition? quoting a definition on wikipedia, "the phrase 'theory of mind' has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own." okay, so it's a part of cognition. so in this definition, theory of mind sounds more like empathy/sympathy, especially when many say today that autistics lack theory of mind--the inability to process the beliefs and feelings of others. olson relates theory of mind to illocutionary force--that illocutionary force is the manifestitation of theory of mind. i don't see the connection--can someone out there help??
another interesting part of the reading this week was the chapter on interpretation. i think it's safe to say that many of our world conflicts stem from misinterpretation. studying the philosophy of interpretation should be everyone's work, as we are all engaged in interpretation. this becomes an especially important task for those that make and execute laws, those involved in religion, and even in our profession as teachers. the repercussions of misinterpretation could mean life or death to a criminal, heaven or hell to the religious, or promotion or retention to a child.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I'm published on the web!
this is amazing. in my vanity, i have googled myself many times to see if i have a place on the internet. and it looks like i finally do. i have not realized, until today, that i AM published on the web with this blog. there are actually people out there that want to read what i have to say. can i just say how powerful and more meaningful this blog is to me now??
in my last blog, i mentioned that i would like to learn hebrew. and i got a response back from some guy IN israel, referring me to some websites where i could. it truly amazed me that people all over the world have access to my blog. can you imagine the influece this could have with our students? in my psycholinguistics class, we are learning about using language as a cultural tool (see Wertsch) and i believe that the knowledge and use of blogs can create a cultural tool for students to use and see that they DO have power with words in this world.
in my last blog, i mentioned that i would like to learn hebrew. and i got a response back from some guy IN israel, referring me to some websites where i could. it truly amazed me that people all over the world have access to my blog. can you imagine the influece this could have with our students? in my psycholinguistics class, we are learning about using language as a cultural tool (see Wertsch) and i believe that the knowledge and use of blogs can create a cultural tool for students to use and see that they DO have power with words in this world.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
i wish i could learn hebrew
in class on monday, emily gave us a mini-lesson on the hebrew language. on page 83, /k/, /t/, and /b/ is explained as being the root word 'write' but when vowels are added in between those consonant forms, it can morph into 'he writes', 'they wrote', 'writing', etc., similar to how affixes are added to words in English. She said that the Torah is written only with consonant sounds and therefore requires a mediator to assist one who might want to read it on their own. If looking at the Torah for the first time, you wouldn't know how to pronounce /k//t//b/ beacause you wouldn't know which vowels went in between. Once given the pronounciation, it is expected that you memorize it.I thought this was so interesting, because it doesn't quite made the Torah a literal text until the oral is matched to it. It's one of the few examples of language we've read about that sits on the continnum between orality and literacy.
There were other examples of semi-literate cultures that used knots and tally marks as mneumonic devices. With the history of writing as a mneumonic device and serving a pramatic purpose, I am awed by how language today has evolved as it has into more.
There were other examples of semi-literate cultures that used knots and tally marks as mneumonic devices. With the history of writing as a mneumonic device and serving a pramatic purpose, I am awed by how language today has evolved as it has into more.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
recounting an IFC movie isn't always easy
we rented an IFC film yesterday called "unknown" starring some recognizable faces, like greg kinnear and one of the matrix characters. as many IFC movies can be, "unknown" was a slow starter and a slow finisher. no fast hollywood gun scenes or car chases. it was an ideal fall asleep and tell me about it later kind of movie. and the perfect setting for a retelling!
the movie is a little confusing already, so while nick was retelling it, i had several points of confusion. even the characters in the movie are unknown to themselves (everyone succumbs to inhaling a chemical that results in temporary memory loss). so as nick was retelling the story to me, i felt more compelled to pay attention to him--more than usual. i can usually surf the net while he's telling me a story, but i had to pay attention to this one. when listening to the retelling, i was either saying, "ok" or asking a clarification question. if i had seen the whole movie like nick, i would have been a more active participant, but then i guess i wouldn't need a retelling. i think it would be interesting to see nick tell someone else about the movie with me present. the dynamics of the retelling would be different and even newly interpreted.
retelling a movie that's become, in a sense, static because it's been recorded on film, as opposed to a retelling of an event between two active parties not recorded, poses some good questions about the nature of stories and their evolution with successive interpretations. movies can be retold or reinvented, but then there's always that hard copy of the material to revert back to. on the other hand, retelling an event that might have happened to me stands the test of memory and language. with no literate recording, it becomes a fleeting and changing product. it's amazing that cultures that used to (and still do) rely on oral history were able to pass down their stories with precision. not to say that they weren't reinvented each time themselves but that there was almost a reverence for the story and its details that changing them might of been seen as a defilement. oral cultures take great care in the details. while recalling the movie, instead of recalling some of the minute details, nick would insert, "and whatever" or "you know" in places that he felt weren't important. in oral cultures, these "and whatever" or "you know" places hold a place of importance that we don't recognize.
i am learning how to add sound bytes to my page and want you all to be able to listen to them, so as soon as i can get a little more tech savvy, i'll do that. in the meantime, i added links of everyone's pages to mine.
the movie is a little confusing already, so while nick was retelling it, i had several points of confusion. even the characters in the movie are unknown to themselves (everyone succumbs to inhaling a chemical that results in temporary memory loss). so as nick was retelling the story to me, i felt more compelled to pay attention to him--more than usual. i can usually surf the net while he's telling me a story, but i had to pay attention to this one. when listening to the retelling, i was either saying, "ok" or asking a clarification question. if i had seen the whole movie like nick, i would have been a more active participant, but then i guess i wouldn't need a retelling. i think it would be interesting to see nick tell someone else about the movie with me present. the dynamics of the retelling would be different and even newly interpreted.
retelling a movie that's become, in a sense, static because it's been recorded on film, as opposed to a retelling of an event between two active parties not recorded, poses some good questions about the nature of stories and their evolution with successive interpretations. movies can be retold or reinvented, but then there's always that hard copy of the material to revert back to. on the other hand, retelling an event that might have happened to me stands the test of memory and language. with no literate recording, it becomes a fleeting and changing product. it's amazing that cultures that used to (and still do) rely on oral history were able to pass down their stories with precision. not to say that they weren't reinvented each time themselves but that there was almost a reverence for the story and its details that changing them might of been seen as a defilement. oral cultures take great care in the details. while recalling the movie, instead of recalling some of the minute details, nick would insert, "and whatever" or "you know" in places that he felt weren't important. in oral cultures, these "and whatever" or "you know" places hold a place of importance that we don't recognize.
i am learning how to add sound bytes to my page and want you all to be able to listen to them, so as soon as i can get a little more tech savvy, i'll do that. in the meantime, i added links of everyone's pages to mine.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
afterthoughts
a girlfriend and her boyfriend eating lunch at home.
i have transcribed a conversation once before with my students during a novel discussion, and it was so tedious that i never did it again. this conversation was while eating lunch, so chewing and swallowing gave us each time between exchanges. the problem i had while transcribing class discussion was the constant overlap between 3 or more students vyying for the floor, and the sometimes fuzzy outpour or confused thoughts that children often exhibit. so between two adults, it was more orderly, with the rules of conversation, argument, disagreements, etc. in place. also, our familiarity with one another (a mixture of the rapport function and continuing state of incipient talk) gave way to less interruption or fast talking that one might find with a conversation between two people not as familiar with one another. but in general, we are not fast talkers or habitual interrupters.
the biggest difference between oral conversation and written language was the body language and humor that i was not able to convey on paper. between two intimate people, i think there is probably more said through body language than through oral language, a tacit understanding without words that we have gathered throughout our time together. secondly, timing is everything. as much as i tried to convey a sense of delay by noting the pauses, there were certainly times when one of us would reply faster than other times or pause between two words in one thought. i was only able to capture the large gaps in time, which i would attribute to our eating more than think time. though there were moments of thought time. those nuances i am conjecturing at from actually partaking in the coversation, though an outsider listening to the same conversation might call some silences 'think time'.
the silent moments were interesting to me. had this been a conversation with a less intimate individual, the 14 second silence that i documented might have been uncomfortable, but i don't recall feeling awkward or noticing the silences until i replayed the conversation. in our case, silence is accepted.
if i did this again, i'd try two new things. first, i would video the conversation. and second, i would take the transcript and try to reenact it with nick to see how far or how close we might get to the original.
i have transcribed a conversation once before with my students during a novel discussion, and it was so tedious that i never did it again. this conversation was while eating lunch, so chewing and swallowing gave us each time between exchanges. the problem i had while transcribing class discussion was the constant overlap between 3 or more students vyying for the floor, and the sometimes fuzzy outpour or confused thoughts that children often exhibit. so between two adults, it was more orderly, with the rules of conversation, argument, disagreements, etc. in place. also, our familiarity with one another (a mixture of the rapport function and continuing state of incipient talk) gave way to less interruption or fast talking that one might find with a conversation between two people not as familiar with one another. but in general, we are not fast talkers or habitual interrupters.
the biggest difference between oral conversation and written language was the body language and humor that i was not able to convey on paper. between two intimate people, i think there is probably more said through body language than through oral language, a tacit understanding without words that we have gathered throughout our time together. secondly, timing is everything. as much as i tried to convey a sense of delay by noting the pauses, there were certainly times when one of us would reply faster than other times or pause between two words in one thought. i was only able to capture the large gaps in time, which i would attribute to our eating more than think time. though there were moments of thought time. those nuances i am conjecturing at from actually partaking in the coversation, though an outsider listening to the same conversation might call some silences 'think time'.
the silent moments were interesting to me. had this been a conversation with a less intimate individual, the 14 second silence that i documented might have been uncomfortable, but i don't recall feeling awkward or noticing the silences until i replayed the conversation. in our case, silence is accepted.
if i did this again, i'd try two new things. first, i would video the conversation. and second, i would take the transcript and try to reenact it with nick to see how far or how close we might get to the original.
3 minutes of lunch
here's a 3 minute piece of lunch conversation yesterday.
A: Baby, I think having a sit….like for you to sit down at a table, to have..just eating and conversation bothers you. You’re just not used to it. This is how I grew up. (Laughing) you’re so diplomatic, you gave me half the tofu.
N: It’s a bento..
A: How kind of you to give me half
A: No, seriously, I think the way you grew up, it’s, I mean, the way that you’re used to, it’s not like just sitting down, you need like the
N: ambiance
A: insufficient. Like talking, just talking at a table is not sufficient for you unless you’re at a restaurant
(2 sec)
N: mmm…
(3 sec)
A: this is how I grew up
(14 sec)
A: did you microwave all this?
N: no
A: oh
(3 sec)
N: these beans are good
(2 sec)
A: these are soybeans?
(6 sec)
A: I’ve never had soybeans like this
(2 sec)
A: you can have mine, I don’t really like em
(2 sec)
A: They taste like pork n beans
N: yeah, they taste like baked beans right?
A: uh-huh
(4 sec)
A: are you sure these are soybeans? For sure? I thought soybeans were round, more round like circular
N: uh-uh. Soybeans are shaped like this
A: I’ve had the kind that are different looking
(8 sec)
A: sitting around a table like this (3 sec) when you’re at home..I don’t think you’re used to
(3 sec)
A: When your mom cooks for you all, like when you were younger
N: yeah
A: what did you all do? What was the routine?
N: it wasn’t a routine. We didn’t always sit at the table or always (1 sec) but usually it was us three
A: uh-huh uh-huh
N: the kids eat together and the parents…because we…sometimes we’d go like watch TV while we eat
A: and your parents would sit together at the table?
N: yeah like they didn’t..they just like
A: OK
N: sitting at a table
A: always?
A: and then sometimes all three of you would sit with your parents?
N: umhmm
A: but it was never like
N: there was no standard
(2 sec)
A: odd. I told you how in my family we always sit at the same seat
N: (laughs)
A: we always
N: we definitely don’t have that. There’s no assigned seats
A: that’s not how…it was never assigned but it was just like the given..just made it easier because like my parents would put rice on our plates but they would..some of us wanted more rice so my parents would know like whose plate was which
(2 sec)
A: even now, when my brothers come home or when it’s like holiday time and my brothers come home we still sit in the same seats
(2 sec)
A: (laughs)
A: Baby, I think having a sit….like for you to sit down at a table, to have..just eating and conversation bothers you. You’re just not used to it. This is how I grew up. (Laughing) you’re so diplomatic, you gave me half the tofu.
N: It’s a bento..
A: How kind of you to give me half
A: No, seriously, I think the way you grew up, it’s, I mean, the way that you’re used to, it’s not like just sitting down, you need like the
N: ambiance
A: insufficient. Like talking, just talking at a table is not sufficient for you unless you’re at a restaurant
(2 sec)
N: mmm…
(3 sec)
A: this is how I grew up
(14 sec)
A: did you microwave all this?
N: no
A: oh
(3 sec)
N: these beans are good
(2 sec)
A: these are soybeans?
(6 sec)
A: I’ve never had soybeans like this
(2 sec)
A: you can have mine, I don’t really like em
(2 sec)
A: They taste like pork n beans
N: yeah, they taste like baked beans right?
A: uh-huh
(4 sec)
A: are you sure these are soybeans? For sure? I thought soybeans were round, more round like circular
N: uh-uh. Soybeans are shaped like this
A: I’ve had the kind that are different looking
(8 sec)
A: sitting around a table like this (3 sec) when you’re at home..I don’t think you’re used to
(3 sec)
A: When your mom cooks for you all, like when you were younger
N: yeah
A: what did you all do? What was the routine?
N: it wasn’t a routine. We didn’t always sit at the table or always (1 sec) but usually it was us three
A: uh-huh uh-huh
N: the kids eat together and the parents…because we…sometimes we’d go like watch TV while we eat
A: and your parents would sit together at the table?
N: yeah like they didn’t..they just like
A: OK
N: sitting at a table
A: always?
A: and then sometimes all three of you would sit with your parents?
N: umhmm
A: but it was never like
N: there was no standard
(2 sec)
A: odd. I told you how in my family we always sit at the same seat
N: (laughs)
A: we always
N: we definitely don’t have that. There’s no assigned seats
A: that’s not how…it was never assigned but it was just like the given..just made it easier because like my parents would put rice on our plates but they would..some of us wanted more rice so my parents would know like whose plate was which
(2 sec)
A: even now, when my brothers come home or when it’s like holiday time and my brothers come home we still sit in the same seats
(2 sec)
A: (laughs)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)