Sunday 27 February 2011

Jill Hohenstein and Childrens' Language

Dr. Hohenstein will be giving a lecture at St.Helen's this week.

Research interests

My research examines how thought and language are interrelated in child and adult cognition. I have two lines of work that address this topic: 1) structure of language and cognition, and 2) discourse and cognitive development.

Linguistic Structure: This strand of my research has investigated the use of motion descriptions in English and Spanish, focusing on the manner and path aspects of motion. Several of my studies have used motion events to examine different features of motion event judgments and descriptions. These range from studies on infant ability to discriminate manner and path in motion events, to Spanish/English adult bilinguals' use of motion verbs to describe these events. I have also shown that children make different similarity judgments about motion events as a factor of the language they are learning and their age. I am currently conducting pilot work investigating metaphorical motion in Spanish and English.

Discourse: This body of work has been conducted in conjunction with the Centre for Informal Learning and Schools. I am interested in learning what children can glean from their linguistic contexts. These contexts may be implicit teaching devices used by parents and others in their environments. To this end, I have been involved in an examination of children's ideas about science and learning in a museum context, as related to parents' questioning and explanation patterns in parent-child conversations. I am also investigating children’s understanding of the origin of species as related to parent-child conversation about science. In addition, I am interested in examining naturalistic use of analogy in informal as well as formal contexts to promote understanding of new material.

 

Teaching

 

Programme Director

Memberships

  • Society for Research in Child Development
  • Cognitive Development Society
  • British Psychological Society
  • European Association of Research in Learning and Instruction
  • International Cognitive Linguistics Association
  • International Association for the Study of Child Language
 

 


 
 

Tuesday 8 February 2011

Freud the Joker


Freud wrote Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905) at nearly the same time as Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), but here pleasure is approached from the angle of wit and its mechanisms and motives. In this work Freud further develops his principal discoveries on mental activity described in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), already containing a reference to wit in the structure of dreams.
Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious is divided into three sections: analytic, synthetic, and theoretical. As in The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud discusses at length the theories of philosophers (Theodor Vischer, Kuno Fischer, Theodor Lipps) and writers (Jean Paul, Heinrich Heine, Georg Licthenberg), and gives examples from Jewish folklore in the self-analytical part of the book. This self-analysis is as essential here as it was in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams and The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901).
The first part (analytic) is essentially descriptive: the mechanisms of jokes makes use of the principal elements of dream work, which Freud summarises, providing an overview of the techniques used in telling jokes. As with dreams, these mechanisms are unconscious and can only be determined after the fact. But to these mechanisms Freud adds the element of meaning, that is, the aims of wit, the pleasurable or hostile satisfaction obtained in telling jokes. It is this meaning he attaches to humour that makes his investigation of jokes profound.
The second part (synthetic) investigates the pleasure of jokes and its mechanisms and building on the work of Gustav Theodore Fechner, Freud makes use of ideas developed earlier in the Project for a Scientific Psychology [1895]). The distinction between jokes and the comic allowed Freud to emphasize that the former is essentially a social activity requiring the presence of a third party, or other people. The activity is further complicated by the fact that group ,as well as individual, dynamics are at play: "Why are we driven to tell our own joke to someone else? . . . Because we are unable to laugh at it ourselves" (Freud, 1905c, p. 190). Hence the famous Freudian joke, “ a man is marooned on a desert island with Pamela Anderson. They have sex. He says Pam will you do me a favour ? She says “ Sure, what?” He says will you put on this false moustache and use a gruff voice. She says “OK” not knowing where this is going. When she does this he goes up to her nudges her in the ribs and says “Guess what, I slept with Pamela Anderson.”
The third part (theoretical) returns to the comparison between dreams and jokes, but from the point of view of the unconscious. Freud indicated that he hoped to convince readers of the richness of his ideas presented in 1900 in 'The Interpretation of Dreams' , which were often reduced to the simple idea of "wish fulfillment." He also related his theories to those of Theodor Lipps and noted "there is a return of the mind in dreams to an embryonic point of view" (p. 211). In the pleasure of jokes, adults discover again the infantile as a source of the unconscious: this is most clearly illustrated by clowning -such as slipping on banana skins or by play with words and thoughts. The chapter closes with an analysis of the varieties of the comic, which is more difficult to analyse because it is not a process elaborated like a dream or joke but an encounter with a situation. According to Freud, "The comic arises in the first instance as an unintended discovery derived from human social relations" (1905c, p. 234). The production of the comic (imitation, parody) highlights a narcissistic, self-loving,aspect of the mind, that is, the comparison of self and other. How could he/she behave like such an idiot.
The book concludes with some of Freud's subtlest and richest ideas about the subject, namely the distinction between humour and irony. He returned to this distinction in his short article on humour in 1927.
Though this book has not always received the attention it deserves, it is definitely an important work. Lacan (1998) discussed it in his seminar on the formations of the unconscious a reommendation in itself.

Thursday 3 February 2011

The Vile Frankie Boyle -who thinks he's funny ?

This is from a review of the most vile of modern 'comedians' who would find jokes about Baby 'P' funny ? I suggest only a person with the sickest and most degraded form of mind. Among some groups, for example, some university students, this type of cruel filth passes for sophistication. Could it be, that among groups of young people who have never, in any sense, suffered in their brief lives the intense pain of Baby 'P' is worth little more than a giggle. To human beings who are capable of empathy with the pain and anguish of others this kind of 'humour encourages only anger and disgust.

This is from a view of a recent 'performance'of his.

The good news is that 38-year-old Frankie Boyle has hinted this may be his final tour as he thinks he is getting too old for live performances.
The bad news is there are another eight mind-blowingly offensive London shows left. I have previously enjoyed this poison-tongued Scot, but he now seems stuck in such a hateful groove his scorched earth act — let’s hope it is only an act — is wearing thin.
This gig, part of his tour fragrantly entitled I Would Happily Punch Every One Of You In The Face, was a sour triumph of vitriol over wit.
Susan Boyle was on the receiving end of sustained venom, while Heather Mills, Katie Price and Jade Goody were skewered too. Women were targeted more than men.
When Boyle spewed his bile over celebrities there was a satirical element, but when he picked on life’s innocents, from Madeleine McCann to Baby P, he became truly unpalatable.
One could argue that these jokes are an escape valve, yet there is something deeply disturbing about this vile recovering alcoholic’s obsession with life’s underbelly.
A psychiatrist would have a field day, as will the press when his Channel 4 series starts.
Most of it was pure bile and it filth. Not so much a comedy show, more a horrible, guilty  secret pleasure. Thankfully there will not be many more unless Frankie cancels his retirement.

So, why do some people find this cruel and viscious 'humour' amusing ?