[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]

[Carol Macdonald]

Julian, Andy

I think arithmetic is something of a test case. Just as word meaning
changes over time in a dynamic way, as recognised by linguists, maths
truths don't. It would be difficult to argue that maths truths of basic
arithmetic have changed over the centuries. I don't know about maths truths
of a higher order.

Sorry if I use the terms arithmetic and maths interchangeably; it's a South
African usage here in basic education.

Carol

On 23 October 2014 08:33, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Andy
>
> Yes, just so,  this is why I go to social theory eg Marx and Bourdieu to
> find political-economic contradictions within and between activities.
>
> But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the notion in
> Vygotsky's Perezhivanie paper that the situation or environment is given
> and the same for all, and the final form of development is given in a
> final, given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being then associated
> with an already given social plane).
>
> I'm happy enough to accept that this is a false  and undialectical reading
> of Vygotsky (after all who knows how the concept of perezhivanie might have
> matured in his hands)...
>
> To return to my case - arithmetic. Many will say this exists in ideal form
> in the culture and all that needs to be done by development is to bring the
> child into the culture... Then the child is 'schooled'... Passive, lacking
> in agency, often failed, and at best made obedient to the cultural legacy.
> AsBourdieu says, through processes in school the class system is
> reproduced, and this is enculturation into the cultural arbitrary.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2014, at 07:08, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the one true meaning
> of something. He does not allow that the meaning of something may be
> contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of heterogeneity in
> society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups, social movements
> and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of something which
> "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which are therefore
> taken to be subjective.
> >
> > Andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> > Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
> >> This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's
> breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. There are about 8 points total... [copypasta is a
> starch of art] --------------------------------------------------- 6. [The
> fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
> --------------------------------------------------- You say: "ANL believes
> that motivation determines perception. The norm of  perception, the "true"
> meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for the community as
> a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of "community as a
> whole" in this context." So is it the case that word-meaning is denied by
> ANL because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across the culture and
> cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the reason
> politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned as the sole
> arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post below Wed, 22 Oct 2014
> 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
> >>> _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning ---------- ANL believes that
> the mental representation in a child's awareness must _correspond_ directly
> to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but also how the
> object may relate and associate to other objects and their meanings. The
> example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I will call here
> for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness", ANL takes exception
> with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a generalization to
> reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
> (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the existence of these
> word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they are what
> construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this because he considers
> consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
> >>>> Andy's reply to #6 above: ANL believes that motivation determines
> perception. The norm of perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is
> therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole. I am questioning
> the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in this context.
> >--end
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa