[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
Patrick Jaki
patrick.jaki@gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 07:16:21 PDT 2014
Andy on "The ability to correctly reproduce things like 4+7=11 is not in my
experience any evidence that a child has grasped what + or = means ..."
Yes, teachers have taught these symbols with finality because that is what
the syllabus says. In other words, as absolute that will
remains fossilized in meaning. If I recall correctly, my friend wrote his
masters project in mathematics on the equal sign. It was an eye opener.
On 23 October 2014 15:49, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Mathematics today is nothing like it was 300 years ago, Carol, even if it
> is in a South African elementary school. And the teacher wouldn't accept it
> if Johnny said that apes had evolved from human either or that gravity went
> clockwise. The ability to correctly reproduce things like 4+7=11 is not in
> my experience any evidence that a child has grasped what + or = means, and
> certainly no evidence that they have any grasp of mathematics or even
> number. Of course, we might take the view that they never will anyway, so
> being able to add is good enough for them.
>
> But if we take the view that it is worthwhile that a child learn what
> science is and what mathematics is about, then in my view, the problems are
> essentially the same whichever science it is.
>
> Of course, in general, the attitude a teacher takes to their material is
> that it is objectively true and the kids should come to know it. But this
> stance or attitude to knowledge, or science, is a very poor preparation for
> adult life and citizenship. I don't see mathematics in principle as being
> an exception. Perhaps a little teaching of the history of mathematics would
> help? I don't know.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Andy
>>
>> I realise that, but it much more robust than orthodox science; i.e. we
>> are still doing the same maths as 300 years ago, where normal science is
>> very different indeed.
>> If Johnny said that 4+7=10, the teacher is not going to accept that, is
>> she?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 23 October 2014 10:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Carol, mathematics is a natural science like any other.
>> It is neither the absolute truth nor merely social convention.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
*Patrick Jaki*
*P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list