Re: [xmca] Plans, Planes, and Plugholes

[Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com>]

David
In this context PLANE (stage, level) is more correct then PLAN
especially taking into account the whole text (right after the bit on
Stanislavsky ) because in the Russian theatrical terminology план is often
used with a spatial connotation (на переднем плане, крупным планом)
Bella

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:45 AM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>


-- 
Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca