Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h6MEuK723724; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <12835EA1.209DCDAE.0A349A3F@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AWilder106@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2455] Re: Syntax and more. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2980 Lines: 25 Meta and colleagues, I replied to Allan yesterday in some pique, not a good way to have an email conversation. It might be useful (or not) for me to put a better foundation under my previous remarks. Noam Chomsky wrote on transformative grammar before brain scans were in common use. The use of brain scans shifted the language discussion to what the brain actually does and brain and language evolution. But his work on transformative grammar must be accounted for, somewhow, by those who write about language. As far as I know, he thought language was innate in humans, as a kind of modular system. Those who follow these discussions know that nature v. nurture is an ongoing academic argument. Others feel that there is at least one other choice, and that is interaction--people start with certain capacities which may or may not be developed according to how they interact with their environment, which includes other people. On the "nature" side there is evidence that we humans do, for example, follow a sequence of specific brain developments, no matter who we interact with. On the "nurture" side, "constructivism" says that as we develop we construct, build, our capacities. I think that teachers likely fall into this camp. As to where "meaning" comes from, that is usually a philosophical question, so has lots of answers. Myself, I stay with what is happening in the brain, and I link "meaning" to the evolution of the forebrain which may be the seat of self-consciousness. Language happens all over the brain, though it usually gets funneled into and out of areas near our ears (hearing)and mouths (speaking). The forebrain (forehead) has connections to language areas and seems to act like an orchestra conductor for language analysis. So when you hear a sentence, you are able to keep it in your mind long enough so it makes sense all together, you don't forget the first part and remember only the last word. Academics spend their professional lives looking at a tiny piece of reality following, usually, well-honed rules for their investigations. Then they write up what they find. The "rules" come from the techniques we all use to figure out what is going on in our lives. What is good? What is evil? Why do women stay with abusive men? The academic Carol Gilligan has written about good and evil calling it "moral development." She has said that women interact with other women and men differently than men do. Do they? How do you obseve it? Nature? Nurture? Interaction? How does this issue affect classroom learning? Does it? Does abuse, violence, change the brain? On this topic adult literacy teachers have invaluable front line knowledge. How do teacher observations key into academic research? I think I said before that academics, or in between types like me, cannot exist without the observations, knowledge, impressions, of those on the front line, teachers, can't be done. And so on. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:43 EST