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

[Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]



I am sure that there are differences between LSV and Shpet, as Larry points out. But there are also striking similarities. Here is a little background:

Martin


Attachment: Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf
Description: Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf

On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin will be sending us an article on Shpet.
> I therefore did some background exploration and discovered that Shpet and
> Vygotsky differed on the notion of "oscillation".
> Vygotsky believed thought and language oscillated while Shpet disagreed.
> 
> Zinchenko clarifies Vygotsky's understanding in this paragraph
> that Zinchenko wrote in his chapter "Thought and Word, the Approaches of L.
> S. Vygotsky and G. G. Shpet": It uses the metaphor of rain [which I
> associated with the other thread on rain]
> 
>    "Thought and word are no less polyphonic than mind.  Yet, there is a
> long way to go to arrive at this conclusion.  And it is hard to
> overestimate the input of Shpet and Vygotsky, along with Aleksandr Potebnya.
>    Out of all the polyphony of mind and thought, out of all the various
> possibilities of origins, Shpet and Vygotsky   gave their preference to the
> word, although they understood it differently.  Let us start from
> Vygotsky's metaphorical description: *What is simultaneous in thought is
> successive in language.*  It would be possible to compare a thought with a
> cloud that showers a rain of words.  This is why the transition from
> thought to language is a very complicated process of *dismemberment* of a
> thought and its recreation in a word.  On the next page, Vygotsky wrote,
> 'continuing this picturesque comparison, we should liken the motivation of
> thought to the wind that sets the clouds in motion.'  If something can *pour
> itself, *it means that it already exists.  Therefore we can understand the
> given metaphor as saying that thought, already existing is *expressed *in a
> word"  [emphasis in the original]
> 
> This quote draws attention to Vygotsky perceiving *oscillation *behind the
> movement of thought and language. Shpet did not see thought and language as
> oscillating.  Zinchenko's goal in his article is not to place the
> approaches of Shpet and Vygotsky in opposition but to present them as
> mutually complimentary approaches.
> 
> I hope to learn from others on the complexity of the notions of
> oscillating movement of thought and language situated within words.
> Polyphonic notions