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
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
Larry, this question (the meaning of "the inner aspect of a word,
its meaning" has come up before, and I think not satisfactorily
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
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
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.
Larry Purss wrote:
I am referring to chapter 9 in the book "The Cambridge
Here is the link to google books
Henry, what is "inner form" ? The answer to this is very
includes exploring the relation of "sense and meaning" II
getting the book from a library as every chapter is interesting.
Vladimir Zinchenko's chapter I found very informative as
Vygotsky and Shpet into dialogue in a way that offers a close
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
There is the external referring to things AND the "internal
aspect of sign that expresses the "living form" of word,
image, and action.
As Martin and Mike have mentioned we are exploring the
emerges from within the "gap" and does involve imaginal processes.
This is my interpretation of "inner form" but I would invite
correct my [mis]understanding on the way to more clarity
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, HENRY SHONERD
<firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
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.