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

[Xmca-l] Re: sense, meaning and inner aspect of word



Andy,
You mention we have not satisfactorily answered the question of  the inner
form of the word.
Are you aware if Vladimir Zinchenko's chapter has been discussed, as he
contributes a close reading of Vygotsky which he then expands by bringing
in Shpet.

Vladimir at the end of his article presents a hypothesis on the "origin" of
the internal form of a word, a person, an image, and an action. He states:

"My hypothesis is that in the course of lively, active, or contemplative
penetration into inner forms of the word, symbol, another person, a work of
art, or nature, including one's own nature, a person is building his or her
internal form and *expanding the internal space* of his or her soul."

Has Vladimir's hypothesis been explored that it is in the penetration into
inner forms that the inner forms are being built AND expanding the internal
space?

Vladimir's chapter is an invitation to consider this hypothesis

Larry



On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Larry, this question (the meaning of "the inner aspect of a word, its
> meaning" has come up before, and I think not satisfactorily answered.
> I did a search on "Thinking and Speech" for all the uses of the word
> "inner". 283 of the 329 of them are "inner speech" and all the others are
> referring to mental or psychological, and then there's "inner aspect of a
> word."
> The related term is "sense," and in Chapter 7, citing Paulhan apparently
> with approval, he says:
>
>    "First, in inner speech, we find a predominance of the word’s sense
>    over its meaning. Paulhan significantly advanced the psychological
>    analysis of speech by introducing the distinction between a word’s
>    sense and meaning. A word’s sense is the aggregate of all the
>    psychological facts that arise in our consciousness as a result of
>    the word. Sense is a dynamic, fluid, and complex formation which has
>    several zones that vary in their stability. Meaning is only one of
>    these zones of the sense that the word acquires in the context of
>    speech. It is the most stable, unified, and precise of these zones."
>
> So a word's sense is the *totality* of "*all* the psychological facts that
> arise in our consciousness as a result of the word."
> But meaning (i.e., I suggest, "sense") "is only *one of these zones" of
> the sense that the word acquires in the context of speech."
> So the inner aspect of the word is *part* of the totality of the
> psychological facts that arise as a result of the word.
> Specifically, it is what we intend, or "the most stable, unified, and
> precise of these zones," whereas in uttering the word there are all sorts
> of associated feelings etc., which are not "meant" but are part of the
> sense nonetheless.
>
> ?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Larry Purss wrote:
>
>> Henry
>> I am referring to chapter 9 in the book "The Cambridge Companion to
>> Vygotsky"
>> Here is the link to google books
>>
>> https://books.google.ca/books?id=pn3S9TEjvUAC&printsec=
>> frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>
>> Henry, what is "inner form" ? The answer to this is very complicated and
>> includes exploring the relation of "sense and meaning"  II would recommend
>> getting the book from a library as every chapter is interesting.
>> Vladimir Zinchenko's chapter I found very informative as Vladimir puts
>> Vygotsky and Shpet into dialogue in a way that offers a close reading of
>> Vygotsky.
>>
>> Today Peter sent a page on this same topic. The sentence
>> "in other words, we are dealing with signs that do not only refer to
>> things
>> but also express some MEANING." (Shpet, 1927)
>>
>> Inner form is the exploration of the "but also express some meaning"
>>
>> There is the external referring to things AND the "internal form" the
>> aspect of sign that expresses the "living form" of word, image, and
>> action.
>>
>> As Martin and Mike have mentioned we are exploring the phenomena that
>> emerges from within the "gap" and does involve imaginal processes.
>>
>> This is my interpretation of "inner form" but I would invite others to
>> correct my [mis]understanding on the way to more clarity
>> Larry
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Larry,
>>> Please help me:
>>> 1) What is “inner form”?
>>> 2) I can’t find the Zinchenko article in my emails. Was it sent out or a
>>> link to it?
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>