I argued that the word “plane” which is used to describe планов should be translated as “plan”, in the sense of work plan rather than as a two dimensional geometrical plane. Here’s what I mean. In the last part of Chapter Seven, right after the bit on Stanislavsky (about which more below), Vygotsky says this: На этом и заканчивается наш анализ. Попытаемся окинуть единым взглядом то, к чему мы были приведены в его результате. Речевое мышление предстало нам как сложное динамическое целое, в котором отношение между мыслью и словом обнаружилось как движение через целый ряд внутренних планов, как переход от одного плана к другому. Мы вели наш анализ от самого внешнего плана к самому внутреннему. I gather this means something like: "On this we conclude our analysis. Let us attempt to look over at a glance what it has yielded in result. Verbal thinking appeared to us as a complex dynamic whole, in which the relation between the thought in a word was revealed as motion through a whole series of internal plans, as passage from one plan to another. We conducted our analysis from the outermost plan down to the quite internal." Later, Vygotsky develops the following analogy: the volitional-affective aspect blows clouds, the clouds of thought allow the condensation of raindrops (words), and these eventually emerge in a downpour. We may imagine that in extended and channeled speech they become a river. The wind and the river are the two images that are used in the following scene from Donizetti’s “L’elisir d’amore”, sung by Anna Natrebko and Rolando Villazon, who (I think we must confess) have a certain chemistry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npb7OQK3nf0&feature=related In Chapter Seven, Vygotsky takes us on a journey from wind to clouds to rain, from the moment when an utterance is felt, through the moment when it is thought, to the moment when we half-rehearse it to ourselves in inner speech to the moment when we speak. As Martin says, these different plans are of very different degrees of planification and lability; just as "sense" and "signification" in external speech have very different degrees of stability. For this very reason we must walk backwards. Vygotsky takes us from the more stable and observable to the more labile and non-observable. But Vygotsky DOES walk us backwards; he doesn't take us up and down any plugholes and we don't leap from one plane to another. Vygotsky’s friend, Stanislavsky, was a theatre/opera director, and he used a special script to teach his actors how to match utterances to inner speech to thought and to feeling. If we apply it to Nemorino and Adina, it might look something like the ATTACHED, which I think produces the general schema Vygotsky had in mind rather better than the “planes and plugholes” model which Professor Mack circulated earlier. David Kellogg Seoul National University of Education
Attachment:
Plans of Emotion, Thought and Inner and Outer Speech.docx
Description: Binary data
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca