[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Citing xmca Re: [xmca] Vygotsky and Saussure Again



One reason I like to cite my xmca sources is to provide a link to the post in the threaded archives. I'm not just crediting the source of what I'm quoting, but I'm providing a link to that point in the actual discussion, from which interested readers can follow up and down the thread.

In one sense, this is providing more than an acknowledgment of the source, but in another sense, the source is not just the author of the words I'm quoting, but the community in which the discussion is taking place, dialogically.

In one sense, the individual author is the source, and xmca is the medium. In another sense, I think, the xmca community is the source, and individual participants are the media of the communication, which is not just communication of ideas that were already present in the minds of the participants, but the actual forming of ideas collegially and dialogically. The question "what did you mean by that?" "What are you trying to say?" "Can you say it again differently, I don't think I understand what you were saying the first time?" (i.e., the "vouloir dire" question) actually doesn't call forth a re-communication of thought that was already present, but calls forth a re-thinking in which the thinking (by the "communicator" as well as all of the "communicatees") is re-formed progressively, together.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, mike cole wrote:

Great discussion.
Re citation and xmca.
I would like to hear from others, but seems to me that quoting the date of
post to xmca would be nice.... at least acknowledgement of some kind for the
source of the ideas. I have seen a lot of uses of xmca posts without
attribution to anyone at all even though the odds of the person in question
getting the info in question from elsewhere are about equal to my ability to
spell acknowledgment. (see above) :-)

With some help from a friend, Bruce is in the middle of rationalizing the
archived messages so that previously encountered problems of using it as a
data base have disappeared. Good news there on the horizon.

I think that this is what j'ai vouloir dire, kho nose?
mike

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:

Thanks, Michael,

Your point about vouloir dire in relation to meaning is nicely stated. I
will want to quote you on that when I propose a different way of
conceptualizing meaning.

Which brings me to some list-practice issues. Sometimes when I see
something on other lists that I would like to quote, I write to the author
asking for permission to quote -- where the list is more private than xmca.

I feel more free to quote from xmca because all posts here are indexed by
google, and will come up frrom the xmca archives in a google search. I just
thought it was worth mentioning this on-list as a reminder, in case it
matters to anyone who hasn't thought about it. Posting to xmca is
publication.

Which brings me to a more technical question (i.e., one for Bruce): To
quote Michael's post, I will need to note where it is now; but then after it
moves from the Current month in the archives to the page for November 2009,
I will need to find the new url for it from there -- which should be easy,
but is not always (sometimes the contents page has not mapped properly to
the archived posts).

Would there be any way that the url for a given post in the archives could
be the same when it first goes up as it will be forever after?

Thanks.


On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:

 Hi Tony,
from time to time, Derrida writes 'vouloire-dire'. In French, vouloir dire
is the equivalent of 'wanting to say' or 'what do you mean', but this
question is simply asking for another way of saying something. But this
cannot be 'meaning', as scholars tend to write about 'the meaning' of a
word. Because there are potentially infinite number of ways of expressing
what one wants to say, there would be an infinite number of meanings, which
is contrary to the use of the word 'meaning'.

Derrida is an interesting case, because he writes in French but for
Anglo-Saxons. He writes French in view of a translation, and sometimes he
writes --  in the text or the footnote --- 'I wonder how the translator will
deal with this untranslatable expression'.

In a book I have just open as I am working, Derrida does the reverse. He
writes something about 'sens' and, because it pertains to Austin, he puts in
parenthesis the word Austin uses, i.e., 'meaning'.

Perhaps we ought to place in parentheses the original words whenever we
refer to a scholar who has written in a different language, so that we know
what someone refers to. In this way, most CHAT research would have to write
activity (aktivnost', Aktivität) rather than activity (deyatel'nost',
Tätigkeit), according to the Leont'ev / Holzkamp use of the word/s.

Michael


On 2009-11-23, at 7:35 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:

 Hi David, Saussure never has written about 'meaning', and the problem
with many translations into English is precisely the shift that occurs when
Saussurean (Derrida, any one else writing not in English) is translated into
the word 'meaning', when in fact there is no such word in other languages,
and when the semantic relations that subtend the words such as Bedeutung or
Sinn, or sens and signification are rendered as 'meaning'.

Bakhtin read Saussure, but not in English.

Moreover, what people do not seem to understand about the Saussurean
approach to the sign is that it is a relation, between a signifié and
signifiant. The signifiant is not 'meaning', because sens and signification
are also translated as meaning.

I don't know about Russian, and whether it cuts up the world in ways that
there is a useful equivalent.

Michael


Strangely, what I think is the most used as an authoritative translation
of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, with facing pages in German
and English--in a book where such matters should be handled
meticulously--"meaning" is used indifferently for Sinn, Bedeutung, and even
Meinung.

As for Derrida, one of his locutions that gets translated as "meaning" is
"vouloir-dire." "Meaning" might work for "vouloir-dire" in some contexts (in
a novel, maybe); but they are not equivalents when the "meaning" of
"meaning" is at issue.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                 -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK  DE  19716

twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________

"those who fail to reread
 are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca