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

[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?



David,

In my research about dynamic assessment I have been able to spot a
moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related to urbanistic
and architectural city features) in such a way that they no longer
"perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not arrive to that
reorganisation are not able to escape from the perceptual challenge of
oral utterances.

The first group of students tend to mediate their linguistic
production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet written words when
asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the Japanese
syllabic system to transliterate sounds.

Best


Arturo Escandón

On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in applied linguistics or
> TESOL, I always get the "four timescales" (phylogenetic, sociogenetic,
> ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's wonderful article on
> Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope that it would help us to
> distinguish better between ontogenetic development and microgenetic
> learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg 2011).
>
> Now I think that was a mistake. The term "microgenesis" was around when
> Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it: it's a constant feature
> of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also strongly associated with the
> Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the term and doesn't use
> it, and I think he's got good reasons.
>
> Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler, Koffka, Lewin,
> Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he doesn't seem to use the term
> microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in Nazi psychology and
> not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly, scathingly, denounces
> Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism in Psychoneurology". I
> think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it conflates external
> perception with perceiving meaning.
>
> Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic", calls his "micro"
> scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as opposed to biological,
> social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's article. At a particular
> point, the participants become uninterested in perceptual high fidelity and
> much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo think if she sees that her
> daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for nursing?
>
> Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to perceptual meaning. But
> "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully reciprocal: the specific
> weight is first on one side and then on the other. Microgenesis is what you
> get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get when you are reading
> Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University