[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] concepts
This is part of his critique in chapter 4 of Stern's "intellectualist" explanation of language acquisition - that when the child starts to speak they have at that instant made the discovery that words are symbols. LSV argues to the contrary that the 'symbolic function' takes many years to develop. To the child at this age, he suggests, a word is just one of the properties of an object. The relationship between word and object is at this age, then, an external relation rather than an internal relation. (Here, as in many places, LSV is using 'internal' and 'external' in the sense of 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic,' to refer to the kinds of relationships among the aspects of a totality (internal) versus the relations among a mechanical collection of elements (external).)
more when I have a spare moment
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> So far as I can see when Vygotsky says (and this comes in the middle of the passage I just quoted in the previous mail):
> "... one finds no 'discovery' that can be identified with temporal
> precision. On the contrary, there is a whole series of 'molecular'
> he is replacing the idea of "discovery" with a sereies of transformations in the relation between sense and reference (under the various names Vygotsky gives it). But these all happen very early, and I don't get the impression that 'conscious and deliberate learning' is involved at all. It's just a kid struggling to get their needs met.
> Monica Hansen wrote:
>> Thanks for this quote, Andy. I think this highlights function, or use in a socially shared, meaningful context as a method of acquisition, from conscious and deliberate learning. It is easier to see this distinction in young children because they do not recognize sign in the generalized way as those with more experience do. Once the use of sign is "discovered and consolidated" as this passage says, does the other system of learning cease developmentally or does it continue throughout development only harder to discern? Is this ability to learn/way of learning a facet of culture or development?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:51 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] concepts
>> Martin, looking more closely at the internal/external structure in T&S IV:
>> "We believe that this view comes closest to the truth. The data on
>> children’s language (supported by anthropological data) strongly
>> suggest that for a long time the word is to the child a property,
>> rather than the symbol, of the object; that the child grasps the
>> external structure word-object earlier than the inner symbolic
>> structure. We choose this “middle” hypothesis among the several
>> offered’ because we find it hard to believe, on the basis of
>> available data, that a child of eighteen months to two years is able
>> to “discover” the symbolic function of speech. This occurs later,
>> and not suddenly but gradually, through a series of “molecular”
>> changes. The hypothesis we prefer fits in with the general pattern
>> of development in mastering signs which we outlined in the preceding
>> section. Even in a child of school age, the functional use of a new
>> sign is preceded by a period of mastering the external structure of
>> the sign. Correspondingly, only in the process of operating with
>> words first conceived as properties of objects does the child
>> discover and consolidate their function as signs."**
>> It seems clear to me that "external structure" of the word is the set of objects that it refers to, more or less the reference in Frege's categorisation, and the "internal structure" is the word's symbolic functioning, which of course has nothing to do with specific objects, more or less the sense in Frege's categorisation. This is consistent with the child forming pseudoconcepts.
>> Thank you for these stimuli
>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>> In five of the eight chapters (counting the preface) of T&S, LSV introduces a distinction that he insists is important if we are to correctly understand how speech has psychological consequences. In each case the distinction seems different, and his terminology varies accordingly: we have word meaning, inner aspect, external and internal structure, sense and reference, sense and signification. I've summarized these below, ordered by chapter, and cited the Russian where it is available to me. I have also suggested some possible sources for these distinctions. Any help figuring this out further would be greatly appreciated!
>>> Preface (1934?): the meanings of words “word meanings [значения слов] develop in children”
>>> Chapter 1 (1933-34): Inner aspect of the word [внутренней стороне слова]
>>> “what is such unit, which cannot be further resolved and in which the properties are inherently contained in verbal thinking as whole? To us it seems that this unit can be found in the internal aspect of the word [внутренней стороне слова], in its meaning [значении.].”
>>> von Humboldt?
>>> Chapter 2 (1932): none
>>> Chapter 3 (1932?): none
>>> Chapter 4 (1929): external structure [внешней структурой] and internal structure [внутренней внутренней]
>>> “the child, as we saw, grasps the external structure earlier than the internal one; the child seizes the external structure: word-thing, which only later becomes a symbolic structure.” [ребенок, как мы видели, раньше овладевает внешней структурой, чем внутренней. Он овладевает внешней структурой: слово — вещь, которая уже после становится структурой символической.]
>>> Chapter 5 (1931): sense and reference
>>> “The first thing that we can learn from contemporary linguistics is that, according to Peterson, it is essential to distinguish between the meaning of a word or expression and its objective reference, i.e. the objects which this word or expression indicates.” [Первое, что мы узнаем из современного языкознания, это то, что необходимо отличать, по выражению Петерсона, значение слова или выражения от предметного отнесения, т.е. от тех предметов, на которые данное слово или выражение указывает.]
>>> “So contemporary linguistics does make a distinction between the meaning and the objective reference of words.” [Таким образом, современное языкознание различает значение и предметную отнесенность слова]
>>> Gottleib Frege?
>>> Edmund Husserl?
>>> Chapter 6 (1934): none
>>> Chapter 7: (1933-34): sense [смыслом ] and signification [значением]
>>> “The first of these is the predominant sense of the word over its meaning in speech inner. Paulhan rendered a great service to the psychological analysis of speech by introducing the distinction between the meaning of the word and its meaning.” [Мы могли в наших исследованиях установить три такие основные особенности, внутренне связанные между собой и образующие своеобразие смысловой стороны внутренней речи. Полан оказал большую услугу психологическому анализу речи тем, что ввел различие между смыслом слова и его значением.]
>>> xmca mailing list
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list