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

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



I guess I should speak for myself.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Larry Purss wrote:
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 <mailto: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/
    <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>


    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
        <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 <mailto: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