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

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



The weird thing, Andy, is that Paulhan never said any such thing.
Vygotsky's referring to Paulhan's essay "Qu'est-ce que le sens des mots?"
where Paulhan, who is a Christian minister and not to be confused with his
well known philosopher father, simply takes the banal view that words have
connotations as well as denotations. Paulhan becomes extremely distressed
when he tries to explain what the denotation of a phrase like
"inexpressible in words" is, and gives up. When he tackles the whole
question at book length, he uses completely different categories of
analysis.

I have always believed, and now I am quite sure, that this section of
Thinking and Speech originally referred to Volosinov's distinction between
"thema" and "meaning", from "Marxism and the Philosophy of Language".
"Thema" is the concrete sense that a word has in a specific situation: it
is what "you" means when I use it to refer to Andy Blundent. "Meaning" is
all the potential meanings that a word might have, considered abstractly:
it is what "you" means in the dictionary, in general, as a potential way of
addressing every single or group of humans on earth. All words have both,
but some have more of one and others have more of the other (e.g. proper
nouns have more Theme and common nouns more meaning; verbs, which are all
common verbs in the sense that we don't try to pretend that actions are
once-occurent, are more Theme when they are tensed and more Meaning when
they are infinitive).

Lucien Seve confirms that Vygotsky was a close reader of Volosinov,
particularly in the last few years when both were teaching at Herzen
Pedagogical Institute in Leningrad (and both were dying of tuberculosis).
Vygotsky's references to Volosinov were all edited out of his works.

David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

On 27 January 2015 at 14:16, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>