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

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



Larry and Andy,
Sense and meaning give me a way to better understand the tension between creativity and convention in language use. I wonder if that tension is, phenomenologically speaking, in the third space. Here’s a quote from Cognitive Linguistics, An Introduction (2006), eds. Evans and Green:

"Language represents a limited and indeed limiting system for the expression of thought…language merely provides prompts for the construction of a conceptualization far richer and more elaborate than the minimal meanings provided by  language…Accordingly, what language encodes is not thought in its complex entirety, but instead rudimentary instructions to the conceptual system to access or create rich and elaborate ideas.”

Convention is essential for commmunication, but it is terribly open ended. And contextual. Mind boggling. Keep up the good work. I’m listening.

Henry

  
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Andy,
> I am making an assumption since Vladimir Zinchenko's approach to the
> relation of thought and language was included in a Cambridge Companion to
> Vygotsky that his approach is valid to present and "get behind" its
> assumptions.
> 
> On the second page of this article says thinking is the movement of thought
> , but one should not underestimate the complexity of it.  Thought is
> sometimes manifested in a word, sometimes in an image, sometimes in an
> action.  as well as manifesting in artifacts and aesthetic arts.
> 
> Vladimir suggests this elusive nature of thought is the most interesting
> quality of thought.. Vladimir suggests what thought 'is' and how it emerges
> are not the most central questions. For Vladimir the *intention to learn
> and see something standing behind *a thought is central as this question
> [what is behind a thought] is an indication of a 'genuine' thought.
> Focussing on just what comes into view in a thought is not the same quest
> as approaching what can be perceived and conceived behind the thought.
> 
> To see behind a thought  is a reflection on thought.  Vladimir then goes on
> and offers how others have answered what is 'behind' thought James [stream
> of raw sensory experience.
> Sechenov [a background of individual action.  Bion [frustration born of
> ignorance]  Mamardashvili [personal feelings]. Einstein [visual images and
> muscular sensations]  Claparede [saw silence] Hadamand [the word is
> absolutely absent from my mind] Rilke [poetically saw wise men turn their
> lips into hearing]  Bely [saw movement and rhythm]  Bahktin [saw emotion
> and will and intonation and he saw another person as living events]
> Vygotsky saw thought as a unity of communication and generalization]
> 
> Vladimir offers this extensive list to prepare the reader to follow him as
> he makes his case for exploring the "oscillation" of thought using the
> metaphor of Mobius strip] as thought oscillating through the external and
> inner forms of thought. I would suggest that Vladimir is hypothesizing that
> behind the ineer is the external AND behind the external is the inner
> forms.  He further suggests this exploration "opens a space" [internal and
> external] for freedom and creativity.
> 
> Andy, if Vladimir's hypothesis is one chapter included in the Cambridge
> Companion to Vygotsky, I believed it relevant to include in CHAT. Meaning
> and sense are as complex as "word" and "thought" and Vladmir offers an
> approach within a tradition that includes Vygotsky and Shpet in the
> exploration of the 'relation' between thought and language.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>