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

[Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning



Xmca folk,

..........."word actually means 'wording'."

This fits with Herb Clark's insight that to really understand Language, you
need to see it as 'languaging'. This is about getting away from grammar and
syntax, to seeing speaking as process - [surely fits with activity theory].
This has completely altered my understanding of language. Here dialogue is
central. ie two people are involved, each anticipating and responding to the
other. I think this => looking for the 'social' aspect of 'culture'.
.....Work in process,
	Esther Goody

I read your comment:

discussing the concept *word* what is meant is not a noun but something
much more like an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in
English but a
verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word'
actually means "wording"--.

I went away and that night heard myself asking if the distinctions between
*word* and *wording* and the way they are different can also be explored as
how *word* and *wording* are*related* [form conjunctions].
Then the question becomes what is *mediating* this conjunction? If I use
the term *between* to refer to the relation as *word* AND *wording* it
seems to imply a certain type of conjunction. However, if the relation is
considered as a *trans* relation [transformation, translation] it seems to
indicate a more fluid flowing or being *carried* from one *aspect* of the
relation towards the *other* aspect and also in the reciprocal direction
without clear distinct boundaries of *word* and *wording*

This also could apply to *event* and *eventing* OR
could apply to *worded* and *wording*

In 1977 Raymond Williams wrote the book *Marxism and Literature* and in
Chapter two Raymond explores what he refers to as a wrong turn in our
understanding when studying the concept *language* and the notion of *sign*.
 Raymond's perspective is the notion of *sign* is a medieval concept which
has been readopted in modern linguistic thought.
*Sign*, from Latin, *signum* meant a mark or token which is intrinsically a
concept based on a distinction between *language* and *reality*.
Raymond states: sign "is an INTERPOSITION between *word* and *thing* which
repeats the Platonic interposition of *form*, *essence*, or *idea* but now
in inaccessible linguistic terms." (page 25)

In contrast to this notion of *sign* Raymond articulates a notion of
*sign*as a PRODUCT [but not merely a past reified product of an
*always-given* language SYSTEM.]  Real communicative *products* [which are
usable signs] are living evidence of a continuing social process within
which individuals are carried but within which they also actively
contribute. This understanding of *sign* is AT ONCE BOTH socialization and
individuation [connected aspects of a single process] which the alternative
notions of *sign* as *system* or *expression* dissociate as reified
*language* and reified *society*.
Raymond also emphasizes his notion of language  rejects the metaphor of
language as *reflection* of *material reality*  We grasp THIS reality
THROUGH language, which as practical social consciousness is saturated by
and saturates all social activity [including productive activity]
Raymond says this grasping is continuous languaging [wording] which is THIS
LOST MIDDLE term between the abstract entities *subject* and *object* on
which BOTH idealism AND orthodox materialism flounder. Language IS this
articulated social PRESENCE in the world.

Raymond is playing with *word* and *wording* [*event* and *eventing*] and
it is the conjunction OF *word* and *wording* which he is articulating



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Without theorizing I want to share my recent observation of development of
> word meaning in my grandson 3.10. Everyday there is something reminding me
> of LSV. Here are examples of words that still are not full concepts.
> Driving home at narrow crowded street he proclaims "The street is sad"
> (atsuv in Hebrew)
> We ask him what exactly is sad, may be people, but he insists that "The
> street is sad";
> Other day I use word single (boded in Hebrew) and he asks what does it
mean
> and with a lot of questions try to develop a concept: A child can be
> single? An adult? When I will be adult? and so on. Sometimes he hears an
> expression and try to use it in order to test appropriateness: "You cause
> me a bunch of problems!" (Zarot zrurot) and after our reaction and
> questions about specific problems he escapes and seemingly gets the idea.
> So the vocabulary expands very intensively, but the meaning of each word
is
> still to be mastered.
>
> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Ma, James (james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk) <
> james.ma@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi David, for your info, the below article contains an overview of
> > perspectives on semiotic mediation within sociolinguistics and
> > sociocultural theory:
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.913294
> > Best wishes
> > James
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 19 July 2014 23:12
> > To: Mike Cole; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Acquisition of word meaning
> >
> > Halliday is Vygotskyan. Explicitly so in places: he says that his
concept
> > of consciousness as a social being derives from Vygotsky. Ruqaiya Hasan,
> > who sometimes lurks on this list, has written extensively on the
> > "exotropic" links between Halliday and Vygotsky. At first I didn't quite
> > believe this, because for Vygotsky what develops is a meta-system made
up
> > of functions (psychological abilities), while for Halliday what develops
> is
> > a metafunction made up of systems (linguistic choices). But Gordon Wells
> > persuaded me: he points out that Halliday's "ideational metafunction"
> (this
> > is the function that allows us to represent the world as figures of
> > experience linked by logic, and is realized in nouns, verbs, and other
> > open-class words) is essentially equivalent to "thinking" and the
> > "interpersonal metafunction (this is the function that allows us to
> > exchange commodities such as goods and services or information and is
> > realized in commands, statements and questions) is essentially
equivalent
> > to "speech".
> >
> > I think the reason that I didn't get the profound and very
> > thorough connection between Halliday and Vygotsky (which seems more
> > endotropic than exotropic to me now) was that I kept assuming that when
> > Vygotsky says "word" he means something like a noun, as in the block
> > experiments of Chapter Five Thinking and Speech. But of course even in
> the
> > block experiments, what is meant is not a noun but something much more
> like
> > an attribute, which would be expressed as a nominal group in English but
> a
> > verbal group in Korean. And elsewhere it's clear that the word 'word'
> > actually means "wording"--what is a single word in the mouth of a very
> > young child is going to be a whole clause in an older child and
> eventually
> > an entire text.
> >
> > So Mike's example is quite a propos. When I first read this example from
> > Shweder back in 2007, it seemed to me that Vygotsky would say that this
> > particular "wording" has nothing to do with morality, and of course it's
> > not really a concept. Now I am not so sure: I'm convinced that a lot of
> > ethical concepts develop out of almost purely esthetic ones, which is
> > actually a good example of how "perizhivanie" starts by meaning feeling
> and
> > only in the course of development comes to mean thinking.
> >
> > In China, what girls tell their classmates in high school is that their
> > "Grandma is visiting" or else that they are "dao mei le" ("doomed").
This
> > was a highly prized condition when my wife was in high school, because
it
> > meant that you didn't have to go out for physical education and you
could
> > stay in and do math homework instead. So one day the boys told the
> physical
> > education teacher that they were all "doomed" and could not go either,
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >
> >
> > On 20 July 2014 03:02, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While puzzling over all the interesting notes on
> > > language/thought/emotion/development in recent days I happend upon the
> > > following. It seems a potential object of interpretation that would
> help
> > to
> > > hightlight for us (for me at least) the stakes in the pattern of
> > agreements
> > > and disageements and silences in the conversation. Does Halliday
inform
> > our
> > > understanding differently from Vygotsky might be a helpful question.
Is
> > > convergence of meaning and generalization manifest?  Anyway, perhaps
it
> > > will be of interest:
> > >  (From an essay on culture's involvement in moral development by
> Shweder
> > > and colleagues. Data from Orrisa).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *"Mara heici. Chhu na! Chhu na!*" is what a menstruating Oriya mother
> > > explains when her young child approaches her lap. It means, "I am
> > polluted.
> > > Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" If the child continues to approach,
> the
> > > woman will stand up and walk away from her child. Of course, young
> Oriya
> > > children have no concept of menstruation or menstrual blood; the first
> > > menstruation arrives as a total surprise to adolescent girls. Mother's
> > > typically "explain" their own monthly "pollution" to their children by
> > > telling then that they stepped in dog excrement or touched garbage, or
> > they
> > > evade the issue. Nevertheless, Oriya children quickly learn that there
> is
> > > something called "*Mara"* (the term *cchuan* (check spelling) may also
> be
> > > used) and when "*Mara*" is there, as it regularly is, their mother
> avoids
> > > them, sleeps alone on a mat on the floor, is prohibited from entering
> the
> > > kitchen... eats alone, does not groom herself and is, for several
days,
> > > kept at a distance from anything of value. Children notice that
> > everything
> > > their mother touches is washed. (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987,
p.
> > 74)
> > >
> >
> >
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14