Contrarian Instincts # 2: MERCER, Words and Minds... (Chapters 5-7)

Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge. [Chapters 5-7]


Here we go again... I finished reading the book and I think that it has a lot of great content and references to different fields of study, but I feel like this effort has been obscured by the advocated existence of an alleged "collective thinking". Of course, this is my personal point of view and interpretation. Probably I am lacking some underlying concepts and theories, but from what I found in the book, I feel like I cannot agree with its main thesis, and I still have the sensation of the author continuously trying to support his idea with exemples that are exceptions and with paradigms that are related to his "interthinking theory" by mostly unjustified and disconnected "therefore's".

"The development of print, and subsequently of telecommunications, [...] made it possible for people to link their thoughts together." (p. 104)


This is true, but we may also reflect on the fact that it actually divided thought in separate "items", like books, as opposed to the "old" oral tradition.


In the paragraf titled "How communities enable collective thinking" (p. 106), the author cites as community resources for "joint intellectual activity": 1) history, 2) collective identity, 3) reciprocal obligations, and 4) discourse. I think that:
1) history: can be an obstacle to the evolution of a community, a "ball and chain" heritage that limits its otherwise natural progress and modernization.
2) collective identity: isn't the claim for a collective identity one of the most common causes for conflict and war?
3) reciprocal obligations: well, there is a "community of practice", based on reciprocal obligations, that comes into my mind. It is commonly known as Mafia...
4) discourse: it is defined by the author as "the specialized language of a community", which may be an isolating and self-confirming factor.


About the research carried out by Julian Orr (pp. 108-111), I think that his study on photocopier repair technicians focuses more on the importance of storytelling as an "unveiling tool" of tacit knowledge, rather than on its "social" and "community" qualities. Furthermore, the importance of the "war stories" shared among the technicians,  is significantly increased by the fact that they have been collected and spread on a large scale. And I would not define storytelling as “an important tool in the language tool-kit” (p. 111). In my view, Storytelling is a natural expression of life through language.


On p. 112 the author explains that:


"Soldiers in special units responsible for torturing "opponents of the regime" went through initiation procedures which included the learning of a special in-group jargon. [...] By using language this way, members of military communities are thus able to use language to jointly redefine the moral significance of their actions and emphasize their joint identity." (p. 112)


Actually, I see it like a technique imposed "from above", which may have worked for individuals as well. 


In the paragraph titled "The nature of CMC as a medium for collective thinking" (p. 126) the author quotes exceptions to the differences between synchronous and asynchronous CMC (like instant messages answered hours or days later) and presents them as a basis for a "happy" blending of speech and written communication.


On p. 140 the author quotes Vygotsky to sustain his theory:


"Vygotsky suggested that the usual measures of children's intellectual ability, such as IQ tests, are too static and decontextualized to be of real educational value. [...] By measuring the difference between the original independent capability of each child and what they were able to achieve when given some intellectual guidance and support, educators could make a more useful, dynamic assessment of these children's educational potential and needs."


Then, on p. 165, he proudly speaks of the success of his "Talk Lessons" and notes:


"The lead school in our project was specially congratulated by the Secretary of State for Education on its improved educational standards (as measured by the performance of our "target" children on national tests)."


I see no coherence in these statements. How can he invoke a "dynamic assessment", and then speak of "educational standards",  praising his project on the basis of high scores "on national tests"?


This is a pity, because I think his vision of the teacher  as a "community builder" (p. 161) could be a good starting point to rethink the classroom and the relationship between the teacher and the students. In my opinion, the ideas of "continuity", "comprehensible purpose", and "active participation", are all important for a new paradigm of social-reflective education.

Memorable Quotes # 7: Dialogue, Evolution of Language, and Persuasive Rhetoric

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“Dialogue stimulates thought in ways that non-interactive experience cannot.” (p. 9)


“Every living language continues to evolve to meet the needs of its speakers.” (p. 13)


“Persuasive rhetoric can only really be judged by its effects on an audience.” (p. 73)

Memorable Quotes # 6: Language and Evolution

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)

“Many linguists, psychologists and biologists […] argue that language is not simply a means of communication invented by our intelligent ancestors, but is a biological product of natural selection.” (p. 7)

Scary Words # 6: “Dispreferred Response”

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


Sometimes, the joint action of context-building can suddenly stall:


“Conversation analysts have identified one such kind of 'glitch' in the smooth flow of conversational activity as what they call a 'dispreferred response'. On some occasions, a speaker responds to a question or statement with a remark which is apparently not the one sought or expected by their conversational partner. By the behaviour of that partner (signs of dismay or confusion, for example) this can be identified as a response which was 'dispreferred'. This reaction then frequently motivates an explanatory account by the person who had made the inappropriate-seeming contribution.” (p. 58)

Memorable Quotes # 5: Misunderstandings, Language, and Interpretation

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“On a practical, everyday level, we all know that we do not reliably make people understand exactly what we mean. […] Misunderstandings regularly arise, despite our best efforts, […] but variations in interpretation are not always “misunderstandings”. […] How otherwise could there be new interpretations of Shakespeare’s plays, and why else are we interested in them? […] It is the inherent ambiguity and adaptability of language as a meaning-making system that makes the relationship between language and thinking so special.” (pp. 5-6)

Scary Words # 5: “American Trial Judges”

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“American trial judges are unwilling to admit a linguist as expert witness in court because they claim that any normal person can understand a conversation when they first hear it, and that to analyse talk in depth is to impose false levels of meaning on 'common-sense' understandings. They also resist the idea that repeated listenings to a tape may reveal to observers new, but no less 'genuine', meanings than were apparent on the first listening. The casualties of this obstinate naïvety are the victims of injustice.” (p. 36)

Memorable Quotes # 4: Vygotsky on “Verbal Thought”

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“He [Vygotsky] proposed that psychologists should investigate the relationship between thought, action, communication and culture. Vygotsky described language as having two main functions. As a communicative or cultural tool we use it for sharing and jointly developing the knowledge – the “culture” – which enables organized human social life to exist and continue. He also suggested that quite early in childhood we begin to use language as a psychological tool for organizing our individual thoughts, for reasoning, planning and reviewing our actions. […] Vygotsky claimed that it is the capacity for “verbal thought” which most significantly distinguishes our intellect from that of others animals. Another key feature of his account of children’s psychological development was the idea that the two functions of language, the cultural and the psychological, are integrated. […] As Vygotsky put it: “Children solve practical tasks with the help of their speech, as well as with their eyes and hands”.” (pp. 9-11)

Scary Words # 4: “Exophoric, Anaphoric, and Cataphoric References”

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“Employing words like “that” and “there” to refer to things which exist in the physical context of the talk. Exophoric reference is a kind of linguistic “pointing”.” (p. 23)


“Linguists would describe that kind of tie as an anaphoric reference, meaning that the link in the text is backwards from “them” to the earlier phrase. But links from pronouns can also be made forwards. [...] The forward linking from “This” to the next two sentences would be described as cataphoric reference.” (p. 60)

Memorable Quotes # 3: Speakers' and Writers' Responsibility

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“Speakers and writers have a responsibility for providing their listeners or readers with what they need to know, or at least with clues to help them access what they need to observe or remember.” (p. 21)

Scary Words # 3: “Performative Utterances”

(Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge)


“The philosopher J.L. Austin called statements of this kind “performatives”, because saying them amounts to the performance of a specific social action.” (p. 11)


Example: “I now pronounce you husband and wife!”

Contrarian Instincts # 1: MERCER, Words and Minds...

Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge. [Chapters 1-4]

First of all, I want to stress the fact that I enjoyed reading these first four chapters of the book, and it made me think a lot, which is usually a characteristic of a good book. I think this is a great introductory reading to start a reflection on language and on its use in dialogical settings. I really like the fact that the author presented a wide range of conversations, taken from a variety of real-life settings, and I enjoyed a lot the paragraphs on language and persuasion.

I tried to follow the author’s line of thought, but I came to the conclusion that I don’t agree with the main assumption of the book. In my view, “collective thinking” (p. 103) does not exist! While I may agree with a vision of “language as a tool for thinking”, I don’t agree with the idea of “language as a tool for thinking together”:

“Our use of language for thinking together, for collectively making sense of experience and solving problems.” (p. 1)

And:

“Language is a tool for carrying out joint intellectual activity” (p. 1)

Referring to the “solving the crosswords together” example, the author states:

“Using the tool of language, the three people together transform the given information into new understanding.” (p. 2)

It is important to note that the people in the example are using words to discuss about words, and language in this case is the meta-topic. I don’t see a sign of “new understanding”. It looks more like a sequence of words activating a mnemonic function. Shared information, not language, is the key to the solution of the problem. The power here is in the minds of the participants, in their ability to link ideas. The role of language, in this context, is to “translate” and “transfer” those ideas to the other people involved in the discussion. Language, in my view, is an iconic system, it’s the “money” with which you can buy and sell ideas, concepts, commands, desires, etc.
Language is the vehicle, not the agent, and if we agree with that, I think that we cannot agree with the thesis of book.

Another statement I strongly disagree with is that:

“Few, if any, major achievements in the arts, sciences or industry have been made by isolated individuals.” (p. 3)

I will quote just a few names: Dante, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Mozart, Edison, Tesla…

In more than one point in the book, it looks like the author is trying to “sell” us the idea that:

“Almost always, significant achievement depends on communication between creative people. (p. 3)

And you see this "selling" sensation emerging very clearly when he quotes the “literature of the Brontës” (p. 3) as an example of “creative collectives”. What about the 99.9% of the “non-collective” writers? He takes an exception and presents it as an example of a general rule.

On page 5 the author argues that:

“The act of communicating is always a joint, creative endeavour.” (p. 5)

On page 6 he states that:

“Language is designed for doing something much more interesting than transmitting information accurately from one brain to another: it allows the mental resources of individuals to combine in a collective, communicative intelligence”. (p. 6)

And on page 15 he insists:

“Language […] is not simply a system for transmitting information, it is a system for thinking collectively”. (p. 15)

I don’t think that language is a system for “thinking collectively”. And just like the term “interthinking” (p. 16), it sounds more like a catchy phrase…

I think that knowledge is an individual achievement that can be shared in a situated context, and it lives independently from the language. I use language when i want to communicate or share something. I also think that my “inner language” is different from the “external language”. I have to put my inner language in a "translator" to share it with other people. Therefore, if misunderstanding happens, it’s largely due to the non-perfect character of language and of this “translator”.

I may position my language, and my flow of thoughts, to welcome you into the discussion, still we are not thinking together. About the “dancing together” example: the fact is that we can dance with many partners, still, we are one dancer. Doing something together, in my opinion, is an extremely situated phenomenon and there is no such thing as “thinking together”. The author himself states that:

 ““context” is created anew in every interaction between a speaker and listener or writer and reader” (p. 21). 

And, by the way, I don't agree with the idea of a context that excludes the surrounding elements (p. 19 and p. 44), and I think that we should also consider “the inner context”, which may not be shared.

************************************

Minor glitches: 

The year of death of Vygotsky is 1934, not 1933 (p. 10). On p. 65 the author quotes “elaborations”, as a technique used by teachers which was discussed before, but this is really the only instance in the whole text. I think that on p. 67 the author is talking of “Concordancers” (not “Concordances”), referring to a particular type of software. Last, but not least, I don’t like the way the author introduces “autistic disability” in the discourse, on page 103.

************************************

On page 20 the author states that:

“According to systemic linguists, a text […] has its context of use defined when it is generated, and so carries the stamp of its intended function in its form.” (p. 20)

My question is: what if a text is created to be delivered in another place and/or time? 

Personally, I don’t like the term “Cumulative Talk” (p. 31). I see conversation, reading, listening, like a “clarifying” activity, not a cumulative one. It looks like the process  (for example, two friends sharing information) is confused with the “cumulative construction of knowledge”.

On page 102, the author, on the three kinds of talk discussed (“cumulative”, “disputational”, “exploratory”) affirms that:

“No system of categories could ever really do justice to the natural variety of language, and even short stretches of dialogue may have characteristics of more than one of each of these types of talk. But this categorization is nevertheless useful for making sense of the messy, category-defying reality of conversation.” (p. 102)

In my opinion, it is not a very useful categorization: either we find falsifiable categories fitting all kinds of linguistic interactions, or it’s just “an exercise of style”. This is even amplified by the following quotation reported by the author, that sounds like a very nice, euphemistic and justificatory way to say “I don't know”:

“Rupert Wegerif has elegantly expressed it: in exploratory talk, the instant, uncritical “yes” of cumulative talk and the instant, self-defensive “no” of disputational talk are both suspended.” (p. 102)

On the same page the author states that:

“We can use language to join our intellects in an uncritical, non-competitive and constructive way.” (p. 102)

Constructive and uncritical? I don’t think so… :-)

Mighty Digests # 1: BURCK, Comparing qualitative research methodologies...

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.) 

Three qualitative methodologies analyzed (useful for the research of subjective experience and meaning):
- 1. Grounded theory
- 2. Discourse analysis
- 3. Narrative analysis


The study
Exploring the experiences of speaking more than one language (multilingual individuals have different experiences in their different languages).


Systemic family therapy
“The recent demand for evidence-based treatments has driven the implementation of outcome studies, which are mainly carried out using quantitative measures. This approach, even if very valuable, has left researchers with some crucial questions, as it is unable to manage the variability and richness of the data.” (p. 237)


Quantitative vs. qualitative
“Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are best suited to different kinds of research questions, posed at different levels, for different audiences, but critically interlinked.” (p. 238)


Different methodologies, same research material
“It has been hard to find a comparison of different methodologies in the qualitative research literature, and what they can accomplish with the same research material.” (p. 240)


The research process
“The most crucial development aspect of the research process […] is the research question.” (p. 240)

Self-reflexivity

“The challenge of maintaining reflexivity throughout the research process is vital in qualitative research.” (p. 256)

Questions are interventive
“An interview does not just elicit a story already known, but often contributes to the construction of a new account with its own effects.” (p. 241)


The importance of pilot interviews
“Asking research participants to reflect on their experiences of the questions and the interview process, and any significant abscences, can be extremely helpful.” (p. 241)


Ontology
What can be known about a subject.


Epistemology
The nature of the relationship between the knower and what can be known.


Research data as “constructed”
“Qualitative research situated within the social constructionist paradigm (Guba and Lincoln, 1994) consider research data, such as the accounts of research participants, as “constructed” within a particular research context, rather than as an objective reflection of “reality”.” (p. 242)


Researcher's position and context
“The ways in which the researcher is positioned as similar and different to the research participants […] also need to be taken into account, alongside an attention to context.” (p. 242)


1. Grounded Theory
“A grounded theory approach, developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in opposition to hypothesis-testing research, was designed to help researchers elicit and analyse qualitative data to identify important categories in the material with the aim of generating ideas and theory “grounded” in the data. The approach, further developed more recently by, among others, Rennie et al. (1988), Charmaz (1995) and Henwood and Pidgeon (1996), is particularly appropriate for discovery-oriented research in areas which are under-theorized.” (p. 244)


“The strength of a grounded theory approach lies in its ability to aid a researcher to generate theory about processes and to develop conceptual analyses of social worlds. As Pidgeon (1996) argued, it is an approach which enables researchers to conduct contextually sensitive research.” (p. 244)


2. Discourse Analysis
“Discourse is here regarded as a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images and stories (Burr, 1995), and as an institutionalized use of language (Davies & Harré, 1997) which produces particular versions of events and the social world.” (pp. 248-249)


“Discourse analysis is located in a social constructionist paradigm.” (p. 249)


“The focus of discourse analysis fits well with systemic psychotherapists’ interest in language and dominant and subjugated meanings (White and Epston, 1990), and offers a framework for the deconstruction of meanings.” (p. 249)


“Discourse analysts ask questions about language such as: What actions does this piece of talk perform? What accounts are individuals trying to construct in interaction with each other? How do these accounts change as contexts change? (Wetherell and White, 1992)” (p. 249)


3. Narrative Analysis
“Narrative analysis (Gee, 1991; Kirkman, 1997; Riessman, 1993, 2001) focuses on the way individuals present their accounts of themselves and views self-narrations both as constructions and claims of identity (Linde, 1993).” (p. 252)


An interesting approach to narrative analysis
“Gee’s (1991) method of re-transcribing narrative sequences as poetic stanzas, in order to analyse their organizing metaphors.” (p. 254)

Memorable Quotes # 2: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.) (See p. 238)


“Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are best suited to different kinds of research questions, posed at different levels, for different audiences, but critically interlinked.” (p. 238)

Memorable Quotes # 1: a "Gold Standard" for Qualitative Research

(Article: Silverman, D. (2001). Naturally occurring talk (Chapter 6, pp. 159-192) inInterpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) (See p. 189)


"If there is a "gold standard" for qualitative research, it should only be the standard for any good research, qualitative or quantitative, social or natural science – and that requires affirmative answers to two questions. Have the researchers demonstrated successfully why we should believe them? And does the research problem tackled have theoretical and/or practical significance?" (p. 189)

Scary Words # 2: "Summons"

(Article: Silverman, D. (2001). Naturally occurring talk (Chapter 6, pp. 159-192) inInterpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) (See p. 170)


[…] The person who responds to a telephone bell is not really answering a question, but responding to a summons. A summons is any attention-getting device (a telephone bell, a term of address such as “John?”, or a gesture like a tap on the shoulder or raising your hand). A summons tends to produce answers.

Scary Words # 1: “Depersonalized Goal-Rationality”

(Article: Arminen, I. (2005). Classrooms and the transmission of knowledge and expertise (pp. 112-134). In I. Arminen (Ed.) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Ashgate Publishing.) (p. 112)


"I will then show that the significance of classroom interaction lies in the way it helps establish a depersonalized goal-rationality, which ultimately allows the emergence of a self-disciplined epistemic relationship to the external world." (p. 112)

Little Big Question # 8: Why do you think many interactional patterns in the classroom have survived for centuries?

(Article: Arminen, I. (2005). Classrooms and the transmission of knowledge and expertise (pp. 112-134). In I. Arminen (Ed.) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Ashgate Publishing.)


Why do you think many interactional patterns in the classroom have survived for centuries? And do you think CA/DA applied to these patterns may help us understand how to “break them”? How do you see the role of technology in this process?

Little Big Question # 7: The “transfer of knowledge” and the “assessment of students” as a seamless and simultaneous process?

(Article: Arminen, I. (2005). Classrooms and the transmission of knowledge and expertise (pp. 112-134). In I. Arminen (Ed.) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Ashgate Publishing.)

The “transfer of knowledge” and the “assessment of students” look like very different, and somehow subsequent, steps. Could you imagine a system in which these two stages take place seamlessly and almost simultaneously? (See J.P. Gee on digital games) What kind of features should such a system have?

Little Big Question # 6: The researcher as a “provoking intruder”: “researcher provoked data” in a “naturally occurring setting”?

(Article: Silverman, D. (2001). Naturally occurring talk (Chapter 6, pp. 159-192) in Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) (See p. 159)

We have seen the difference between two kinds of data: “researcher provoked” and “naturally occurring”. Would a researcher be allowed to “inject” some questions/ideas/topics (for exemple, as catalysts) in a natural setting (like an online forum)? Would it be sound (or at least justifiable) from a methodological and ethical point of view?

Little Big Question # 5: How could you define “positioning through language”?

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.) (See p. 251)


What does “positioning through language” mean?  

Little Big Question # 4: Social constructivism vs. social constructionism?

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.)


Social constructivism and social constructionism: can you tell the difference?


For example, in the article, I would have used "social constructivism" instead of "social constructionism" (for its psychological "accent"), but I am not sure about it... I would really like to know more about these two perspectives, and when I should refer to the one or to the other.

Little Big Question # 3: What are the most effective techniques to construct meaningful researcher categories?

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.) (See p. 244)


In the coding process (for example, when we analyze a written text), how can we identify effective “splitting”, “linking”, “clustering” and “merging” techniques, to construct meaningful researcher categories?

Little Big Question # 2: Is qualitative research mostly "hypothesis-generating" and "exploratory"?

(Article: Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy 27, 237-262.)

Do you agree with the assumption that qualitative research is mostly a “hypothesis-generating research” and that it has a more “exploratory nature” than a quantitative one? Do you agree with the "division" presented in Fig. 1 in the article (p. 239)?

Little Big Question # 1: How could you define “systemic research” and “systemic thinking”?

The word "systemic" is intriguing in itself... How is it related to qualitative research and conversation/discourse analysis (CA/DA)?

Welcome!

Hello everybody and welcome to my blog on discourse and conversation analysis!