[Xmca-l] Re: labour and signs

[Andy Blunden]

Well, Mike, while we are always interested in any information that comes 
to light about the ancient formation of language, I find that theories 
about that are invariably reifications (or exptrapolations if you like) 
of theories based (as you remark to Annalisa) on actual observations of 
(1) ontogeny, (2) the cultural-historical  origin and development of the 
particular concepts themselves and the words indicating them.

Re (1) Vygotsky has lots to say about this and of course you 
psychologists continue to investigate this in your own lifetime; from 
Chapter 5 of T&S,  for example:

    * "The tasks that are posed for the maturing adolescent by the
      social environment - tasks that are associated with his entry into
      the cultural, professional, and social life of the adult world -
      are an essential functional factor in the formation of concepts.
      Repeatedly, this factor points to the mutually conditioned nature,
      the organic integration, and the internal unity of content and
      form in the development of thinking."

    * "It would be a mistake to ignore or fail to recognize the
      significance of the life-task as a factor that nourishes and
      directs intellectual development in the transitional age. However,
      it would also be a mistake to view this aspect of causal-dynamic
      development as the basic mechanism of the problem of concept
      development or as the key to this problem."

Re (2) Engestrom has done work on this. I stand by the analysis in my 
paper on the formation of the concept of Collaborative Learning Space 
which differs only in detail in comparison with Engestrom's 7-step 
process, but I think the most decisive and spectacular evidence of all 
is the research done on the emergence of the word for the various 
colours in all the languages of the world and how this correlated with 
the ability to manufacture materials in the respective colour. In 
general, new concepts and the words for them arise when solutions are 
proposed for problems which have arisen in the course of regular, i.e., 
in some way rule-governed or institutionalised, practice (i.e., 
activity). A problem in practice is solved in practice and then named. 
Marx points out how the solution is found and practised before theorists 
can describe it and give a name to it, but I would hesitate to make this 
a general rule, though it may be appropriate in the case of broad social 
change.

In relation to the word-tool business, sometimes the word naming a new 
concept names a new tool (e.g. Collaborative Learning Space), but not 
always. It may name the solution (e.g. "regulation") to a problem 
("contradiction" in Engestrom's vocab) which is not necessarily a tool, 
sometimes the problem itself  (e.g. "sexism") but in essence always 
indicates the solution not the problem, sometimes a new concept comes in 
the form of two words being a new distinction. The selection of the word 
itself is a whole other matter of course.

Personally, my interest is in (2) above.

Does that answer your question, Mike?

Andy
https://www.academia.edu/2758945/The_Formation_of_the_Concept_of_Collaborative_Learning_Space_
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


mike cole wrote:
> Here is the quotation, Andy:
>
> Gutsman has noted, however, that we can agree with
>        Goethe that the word as such should not be overvaluated and can
>        concur in his transformation of the Biblical line to, “In the
>        beginning was the //deed/.” /Nonetheless, if we consider the
>     history of development, we can still read this line with a different
>        emphasis: “In the //beginning/ /was the deed.” Gutsman’s
>     argument is that the word is a higher stage in man’s development 
> than the
>        highest manifestation of action. He is right. The word did not
>     exist in the beginning. In the beginning was the deed. The 
> formation of
>        the word occurs nearer the end than the beginning of development.
>
> How should i be thinking about this passage if not to ask, "if the 
> formation of the word occurs nearer the end than the beginning of 
> development" what transformations of action are implicated in the 
> appearance and development of the word? I take it that in one sense, 
> all of developmental studies of language acquisition are attempts to 
> answer the question. But there it is.
> mike
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     can you explain, Mike?
>     andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     mike cole wrote:
>
>         Which still leaves us with the question of how language
>         developed out of other forms of action -- in phylogeny and
>         ontogeny-- as Haydi emphasized recently.
>         mike
>
>