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

[Xmca-l] Re: the genetic roots of thought and speech



I think that in Peircean terms, gestures are iconic or indexical, whereas the archetypal sign in a Deaf Sign Language is a Symbol.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


HENRY SHONERD wrote:
 A conjecture, proposal and prediction:
Gesture as a metaphor, a unit of analysis, for all modalities of human symbolizing. A suggestion:
Consider forwarding your thoughts on listserv-wide posts to significant XMCA others before calling out to the whole listserv with a collaborative analysis. This would slow things down, but deepen, the dialog. Let there be eddies in the flow, so to speak.
Henry


On Dec 23, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

I always thought that Vygotsky took speech as the archetype of language, and consequently, when he chose the spoken word as his germ cell/unit of analysis, the spoken word was taken as the archetype for the written word or the manual sign. Personally, I don't see any basis for a significant differentiation between any spoken language and ASL, AUSLAN or NSL, except that the spoken language is logically and historically prior to Sign Language. And despite what Vygotsky says about gestures and knots, I think he saw it that way too.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


mike cole wrote:
Francine. I am uncertain of how to interpret the following thought in this
note:

My reading of Vygotsky is that only speech vocalizations that fuse with
thought
(based on sensori-motor experience) can produce 'word' meanings that are
internalized
as the inner speech that creates higher mental functions (consciously
regulated
thought processes).

Do you mean that Vygotsky erred in this conclusion? Clearly the Dean of our
division of social sciences i capable of higher psychological functions.
Following Vera and many others I really like a multi-modality meaning
making interpretation of LSV, but I am an amateur in figuring out issues of
language. Which is why I depend upon all of you!  :-)
mike


On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Message from Francine:

This reminds me of a debate that I had with Greg Thompson over a year ago
about hearing impaired people  who do not have speech
but use hand sign language. Hand sign language is a sensori-motor semiotic
systems that communicates thoughts to others. This is a semiotic fusion
that
does not involve speech. Dance is another sensori-motor fusion with thought
(which is itself based on sensori-motor experience). Visual symbols systems
are another.

My reading of Vygotsky is that only speech vocalizations that fuse with
thought
(based on sensori-motor experience) can produce 'word' meanings that are
internalized
as the inner speech that creates higher mental functions (consciously
regulated
thought processes).

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:54:14 -0800
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l]  the genetic roots of thought and speech

Francine asked us to re-read Chapter 4 "the Genetic Roots' of Thought and
Speech.
This paragraph was critical

"we are forced to conclude that FUSION of thought and speech, in adults
as
well as in children, is a phenomenon limited to a CIRCUMSCRIBED area.
Nonverbal thought and nonintellectual speech do NOT participate in THIS
FUSION and are affected indirectly by the processes of verbal thought"
[Vygotsky, page 48]

Reading this opens for me the question of all the other functions of
speech
in the adult that are not directly influenced by thought and all the
functions of thought that are not affected by speech.
In particular are there forms of *imaging* that are thoughts but not
functioning in speech. Do these paths of image and thought also develop
and
fuse?

All the functions that Vygotsky explores in the primates and in children
PRIOR to the reciprocal interweaving of thought and language continue to
function in adults. For example the sounds of speech as offering "release
from tension or anxiety" or the sounds as ways of *connecting* and
*bonding*.
It seems that to privilege the fusion of thought and language as dominant
modes of designing places/spaces [such as the third space] makes the
other
functions [speech alone] [thought alone] nondominant modes when the
necessity for connection may be prior to and dominant when reflecting on
the fused mode of thought and language as a partial unity.
In other words, the unit of analysis is the relation of thought alone AND
speech alone AND image alone AND all their actual fusions as other
partial
modes.
This as a multi-modal understanding.
I hope this is the right length
Larry