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

[Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'



Since you answer my question with a question, I take it that the answer is "yes."

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 26/04/2017 11:56 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
Andy--

Are "life" and "living" two different words, or are they two different wordings of the same word?

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    David, after reading this fascinating 2-page narrative
    about Ricoeur and the structuralists out of the blue
    we get the conclusion: "And the power is not in the
    word, but in the wording." Have I missed something? Is
    "wording" ineffable?

    Andy

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Blunden
    http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
    http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
    <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>

    On 26/04/2017 7:13 AM, David Kellogg wrote:

        I remember Paul Ricoeur. He taught at a seminary
        at the University of
        Chicago when I was an undergraduate. I was a
        member of the campus Spartacus
        Youth Club, and it was the only place that would
        allow us a public space
        for meetings. I tried to sell him a copy of "Young
        Spartacus" once: I can't
        remember if he bought it or not. But I remember
        him as a French gentleman,
        personally quite conservative, but not at all put
        off by the presence of
        a screaming red nineteen year old who for
        inexplicable reasons had
        a Parisian accent and spoke the argot of the
        Versailles banlieue. Maybe he
        bought our French paper, Le Bolchevik.

        I have been reading a symposium "On Narrative"
        that was going on at UC when
        I was organizing against Milton Friedman's Nobel
        Prize (he was also a
        professor there at the time--he won the prize the
        same year that Saul
        Bellow, another UC professor, did). Ricoeur,
        Derrida, and Hayden White all
        took part.

        It was the heyday of structuralism, and Ricoeur's
        contribution is
        interesting because it's quite ANTI-structuralist:
        he points out that the
        effect of structuralism on narrative studies has
        been to de-historicize,
        de-memorize, dehumanize; to convert stories into
        exchange values rather
        than use values. So the elements that Propp
        discovers in Ludmilla and
        Ruslan (and the Firebird and its variants) can
        come in any order. In
        contrast, even the simplest act of repetition is
        historicized, humanized,
        and memorable. A use value and not an exchange value.

        Derrida ignores everybody else and embarks on his
        usual verbal
        pyrotechnics, but Hayden White develops Ricoeur's
        idea in a way I think I
        actually used in my "Thinking of Feeling" paper:
        human memory goes through
        stages: medieval annals, Renaissance chronicles,
        and the nineteenth century
        narrative, each of which adds something
        distinctive and makes the
        meta-narrative that they form together into
        something non-reversible and
        developmental. But now I see that the reviewers
        made me remove all that (it
        is just as well: sociogenesis is one story and
        ontogenesis quite another).

        Ruqaiya Hasan used to say that there is a certain
        unity imposed on
        experience by language, from "the living of life"
        to the child's first real
        morpho-phoneme. If you take the phrase "the living
        of life" just as an
        example, you can see some of what Ricoeur is
        trying to get at. On the face
        of it, the phrase is redundant: the word "life"
        seems to contain absolutely
        nothing that isn't already there in "living". Yet
        "of life" must mean
        something, otherwise it would not enable us to add
        the specifier "the" to
        "living".

        I think Ricoeur would say that "life" is a kind of
        de-historicized,
        de-memorized, de-humanized "living", one that is
        turned from process into
        entity, and made synoptical, like the various
        retellings in different
        orders of the four Gospels. Yes, it's a powerful
        way of speaking, but it is
        powerful the way that sculpture is rather than the
        way that painting is.
        And the power is not in the word, but in the wording.

        David Kellogg
        Macquarie University




        On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM,
        <lpscholar2@gmail.com
        <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:

            Mike,
            There is a particular example that occurred
            here when Wolff-Michael
            referenced Ricouer’s 3 volume project
            exploring metaphor and narrativity
            and their common unifying theme existing
            within human temporality
            (finitude).
            Is there an expectation for ‘us’ to go back
            and reference Ricouer’s
            exploration of this relation in depth? Through
            reading and re-reading these
            works of scholarship.
            I myself turned to the preface of Ricouer’s 3
            volume exploration of this
            particular relation,  metaphor/narrativity::
            Temporality.

            Without human temporality, narrativity and
            metaphor would not exist.

            On this listserve there was a glance or nod in
            Ricouer’s direction and
            then???.

            This month we are recycling themes which
            already exist in the archive, but
            is this recycling just repetition,, or
            renovation, or innovation?.

            Peg’s metaphor of leaving loose threads for
            others to return to expresses
            a temporal sense ability at odds with high
            impact journals.


            Sent from my Windows 10 phone

            From: mike cole
            Sent: April 25, 2017 11:02 AM
            To: Larry Purss
            Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
            Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting
            'use-value' & 'value'

            Right Larry. A lot of high impact journals
            (not all) are deeply
            a-historical.

            When my wife and I were writing a textbook, we
            had, with each addition,
            to cut out older refs. To be allow to refer to
            Gesell, Rousseau in a
            serious manner was a constant battle.

            But what the heck. In a lot of classes that
            use the textbook, students are
            not required to remember or re-cover material
            from the mid-term on the
            final exam. In a course on development in a
            field that makes a big deal of
            sequence and growth over time. Live for the
            moment, no need to know the
            history of behavior in order to understand it.

            Yes, mediation has not gone away, despite its
            claimed ailments and devious
            traps.  :-)

            mike

            On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM,
            <lpscholar2@gmail.com
            <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
            So... If more than 10 years old makes thinking
            and thought anethema WHAT
            does that say about the scope of thinking of
            high impact journals?

            When returning to wording, statement, and
            utterance I hope we also turn
            back to ‘mediation’.
            I have this definition of mediation to
            consider: (carrying across -within
            back/forth) BOTH (giving/receiving) within a
            singular relation
            This is felt differently than mediation:
            (carrying over to the other side)
            which may imply bridges  required for joining
            or linking two pre-existing
            sides (first one and then the other).


            Sent from my Windows 10 phone

            From: mike cole
            Sent: April 23, 2017 9:54 AM
            To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
            Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Contrasting 'use-value'
            & 'value'

            Hi David et al --

            Found my copy of Cole and Scribner! To my
            relief, it appears that somewhere
            along the way there was a misattribution of
            that quote you posted that
            Hasan criticized and that I wanted to disavow
            (but there it was in black
            and white!).

            So, apropos, we have a problem of context
            here.  If you look at p. 25 of
            Scribner and Cole, you will find that the
            quotation was in a paper by Cole
            and Gay (1972) (A paper on culture and memory
            in the American
            Anthropologist I had did not recall the date
            of. If you go just one
            sentence above the quotation you find the
            following:

            *For instance, one anthropologist commented,
            upon hearing about the results
            of our first research in this area (Gay and
            Cole 1967): The reasoning and
            thinking processes of different people in
            different cultures don't differ .
            . . just their values, beliefs, and ways of
            classifying differ [personal
            correspondence ].*


            We were *contesting *this statement which was
            the anthropological consensus
            at the time. For those interested in our own
            views at the time,

            it is best to consult Chapter 8 of that book
            by Cole and Scribner on
            *Culture
            and Thought. *(Its all antiquarian stuff
            anyway. Its now 50 years since the
            first publication of that line of work!
            References more than 10 years old
            are anethema to HIGH IMPACT  journals!  :-)
            and :-(


            mike


            Which takes the discussion back to the
            discussion of wording, stating, and
            uttering.

            On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Wolff-Michael
            Roth <
            wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
            <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:

                Julian,
                I suggest reading Rossi-Landi, and Italian
                Marxist scholar, where I have
                taken this:

                Like other products of labor, signs,
                words, expressions,
                and messages have use value in
                communication and are subject to exchange,
                distribution, and consumption; the markets
                within which these
                products circulate as commodities are
                linguistic communities (Rossi-
                Landi 1983).

                An appreciation of his contributions by
                Cianca Bianchi states: "Through

            his

                "homological schema",
                material and linguistic production are
                conceived to be the result of a
                single process
                that is particular to human beings and
                that can best be understood in

            terms

                of work
                and trade. "

                Cheers,

                Michael




                ------------------------------------------------------------
                --------------------
                Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
                Applied Cognitive Science
                MacLaurin Building A567
                University of Victoria
                Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
                http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
                <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
                <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
                <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>

                New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
                <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
                <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->
                directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
                mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

                On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Julian
                Williams <
                julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
                <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
                wrote:

                    Michael

                    As you were - so we are entirely in
                    disagreement, then.

                    For me the E-V and U-V of a dialogic
                    exchange has nothing essentially

            to

                    do with the sensual and super sensual
                    moments of the 'word' as per
                    Vygotsky. And I don't see at all how
                    these really confer 'value' in any
                    Marxist sense of the term on
                    speech/utterance (etc etc).

                    I am guessing that we are back with
                    analogy of 'commodity' and 'word'

            in

                    dialogue, rather than a holistic
                    understanding of discourse in the
                    totality of social-economic relations,
                    and so we have made no progress
                    here.

                    We can take this up another time perhaps.

                    Julian



                    On 22/04/2017 19:47,
                    "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                    <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                    on behalf of
                    Wolff-Michael Roth"
                    <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                    <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                    on behalf of
                    wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
                    <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
                    wrote:

                        Julian,
                        E-V and U-V, but not of the kind
                        that you are talking about, the

                abstract

                        .
                        . . You can look at it like LSV,
                        who emphasizes that the word has a
                        sensible (material) part and a
                        supersensual (ideal) part, not in the
                        abstract, but concretely realized
                        in every exchange. Michael

                        -----------------------------------------------------------

                    ---------------

                        ------
                        Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne
                        Professor
                        Applied Cognitive Science
                        MacLaurin Building A567
                        University of Victoria
                        Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
                        http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
                        <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
                        <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
                        <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>

                        New book: *The Mathematics of
                        Mathematics
                        <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
                        <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->

                    directions-in-mat

                        hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

                        On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM,
                        Julian Williams <
                        julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
                        <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
                        wrote:

                            M.

                            Um, hang on a minute - I agree
                            with everything you said here (I
                            think..).

                            So I suppose this means you
                            agree(d) with me; een though I
                            thought I

                was

                            challenging your view. I
                            thought you were trying to
                            find E-V and U-V

                in

                            the dialogue-in-itself, where
                            I think it's value has to be

            understood

                by

                            the way it is mediated through
                            the wider field of
                            discourse/practice
                            (i.e.
                            In its meaning/sense in terms
                            of the real exchanges taking
                            place in
                            practice).

                            So the point is that one can
                            only understand the exchanges
                            taking

                place

                            within the wider context- the
                            worker exchanges 10 hours of
                            labour

            for

                            the
                            commodities required to keep
                            themselves alive for a day …
                            but this

            has

                            to
                            be understood within the
                            system that allows the
                            capitalist to

            exploit

                            those 10 hours for a profit,
                            and pay wages that do not
                            allow the

                worker

                            to
                            purchase the goods they this
                            produce (or their
                            equivalent)…. There

            are

                            obvious analogies in discourse
                            too.

                            Julian

                            Ps I see I have raised
                            'mediation' now - oops.



                            On 22/04/2017 19:15,
                            "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                            <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                            on behalf of
                            Wolff-Michael Roth"
                            <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                            <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                            on behalf of
                            wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
                            <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
                            wrote:

                                Julian,
                                My sense is that you are
                                referring to macro-issues,
                                you need to

            stand

                                back,
                                abstract, and look from
                                the outside at a system,
                                let it unfold in

                            front of

                                your eyes.

                                I am concerned with the
                                actual constitution of
                                society in

            individual

                                exchanges, actual
                                relations between two or
                                more people, the

                "ensemble"

                            of

                                which constitutes society
                                (Marx, Vygotsky,
                                Leont'ev). I am thus

                            concerned

                                with actual exchange
                                relations, the kind Marx
                                refers to in the

            first

                            100

                                pages of das Kapital,
                                where he has the tailor
                                exchange a coat with

                the

                                weaver receiving two yards
                                of cloth . . . The tailor
                                exchanges

                his/her

                                cloth with others, like
                                the farmer, for 40 bushels
                                of grain . . .

            In

                            my

                                work, I am following them
                                around, concerned not with
                                "meaning" or

                            "ideal"

                                in the abstract but as
                                realized in every THIS
                                occasion of a social
                                relation.

                                My sense is that the
                                differences you point out
                                (attempt to) lie
                                there---perhaps.

                                Michael

                                -----------------------------------------------------------

                            ---------------

                                ------
                                Wolff-Michael Roth,
                                Lansdowne Professor
                                Applied Cognitive Science
                                MacLaurin Building A567
                                University of Victoria
                                Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
                                http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
                                <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
                                <http://education2.uvic.ca/

            faculty/mroth/>

                                New book: *The Mathematics
                                of Mathematics
                                <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
                                <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->

                            directions-in-mat

                                hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

                                On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at
                                10:24 AM, Julian Williams <
                                julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
                                <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
                                wrote:

                                    Michael

                                    Going back many, many
                                    posts now: almost 24
                                    hours worth, I think.

                                    When I wrote this:

                                    'Thus, I suggest, the
                                    'exchange/use value' of an

            utterance/dialogic

                                    exchange maybe ought
                                    to be examined in the
                                    ideological context of

                its

                                    relationship with the
                                    'whole' of social
                                    re/production where class

                            power

                                    becomes visible. I
                                    don't know how to do
                                    this, but the argument is

                            there

                                    in
                                    Bourdieu: the power
                                    relations between
                                    people are part of the
                                    capital-mediated
                                    structure of relations
                                    in a field (including the

                            field

                                    of
                                    opinion/discourse),
                                    and this explains the
                                    forms of discourse that
                                    express
                                    these power
                                    relationships and help
                                    to hold powerful
                                    positions in

                            place

                                    in
                                    the field. In this
                                    view it is not
                                    possible to identify the

            'value'

                            of an

                                    utterance or a sign
                                    outside of this wider
                                    analysis… and an

            analysis

                            of

                                    the
                                    particular
                                    discursive/cultural
                                    field within its wider
                                    sociality.'

                                    The sort of thing I
                                    had in mind was this

            'word/utterance/statement'

                            of

                                    yours (I care not at
                                    the moment which of
                                    these is chosen - in

            this

                                    context
                                    I am not clear it
                                    matters, though I
                                    recognise that every
                                    work was

                            once

                                    an
                                    utterance and a speech
                                    act… and that parsing
                                    into words is a

                            relatively

                                    recent cultural artifice):

                                    '…. My personal
                                    inclination would be
                                    to take Ricœur as more
                                    authoritative
                                    on the subject than
                                    any or most of us'
                                    (see below)

                                    I think the 'value'
                                    (i.e. exchange value)
                                    of this statement of

                yours

                            in

                                    my
                                    frame has to be
                                    understood in the
                                    context of its
                                    function/workthe
                                    academic field (or
                                    this section of it),
                                    how power is exerted here
                                    through
                                    reference to
                                    'authorities' like
                                    Ricoeur (NB not just
                                    'authors'

            like

                            the

                                    rest of us? ), whether
                                    this is really useful
                                    in helping the

                            community to

                                    progress its
                                    understanding of the
                                    issue for practical
                                    purposes

                (e.g.

                            How

                                    many of the readers of
                                    this post have
                                    seriously read Ricoeur

            enough

                            to

                                    get
                                    the point?).

                                    How our community of
                                    discourse comes to be
                                    structured so that

            power

                                    'works' like this -
                                    that is a wider issue
                                    - and  here it does get

                            hard

                                    for
                                    us academics to see
                                    ourselves as we
                                    perhaps could or should be

                seen.

                                    Michael: I hope you
                                    don't take this cheeky
                                    affront too

            personally:

                I

                                    could
                                    do the same to most of
                                    the posts that one
                                    reads on xmca, and

                probably

                                    my
                                    own-  I don't mean to
                                    suggest that they have
                                    no use-value, and

                            certainly

                                    not that the
                                    collective dialogue
                                    has no use value. Yet
                                    still… we

                            should

                                    recognise that there
                                    is a power game in
                                    this field of

                            discourse/opinion,

                                    if we are to
                                    understand one another
                                    well. It may even be
                                    argued

                (with

                                    some
                                    merit?) that a quote
                                    appealing to Marx - or
                                    even Ricoeur - has

            some

                            use

                                    as
                                    well as exchange value
                                    (or lets say merit) in
                                    linking ideas to a

                            body of

                                    previous revolutionary
                                    work.

                                    Hugs!

                                    Julian



                                    On 21/04/2017 16:53,
                                    "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                                    <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                                    on behalf

            of

                                    Wolff-Michael Roth"
                                    <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
                                    <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
                                    on behalf

            of

                                    wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
                                    <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
                                    wrote:

                                        Ricœur (1985), in
                                        *Time and
                                        Narrative 2*, uses
                                        the following

                                    distinction

                                        for the purposes
                                        of theorizing the
                                        difference between
                                        narrated

                time

                            and

                                        time of narration.
                                        Accordingly,
                                        "narrative posses"
                                        "the

            remarkable

                                        property" "of
                                        being split into
                                        utterance
                                        [*énociation*] and

                            statement [

                                        *énoncé*]."
                                        To introduce this
                                        distinction, it
                                        suffices to recall
                                        that the
                                        configurating
                                        act presiding
                                        over emplotment is
                                        a judicative act,
                                        involving a "grasping

                            together."

                                    More

                                        precisely, this
                                        act belongs to the
                                        family of reflective

                judgments.1

                            We

                                        have
                                        been
                                        led to say
                                        therefore that to
                                        narrate a story is
                                        already to

                "reflect

                                    upon"

                                        the event
                                        narrated. For this
                                        reason, narrative
                                        "grasping
                                        together" carries

                            with

                                    it

                                        the capacity
                                        for distancing
                                        itself from its
                                        own production and
                                        in this way

                            dividing

                                        itself in two. (p. 61)

                                        My personal
                                        inclination would
                                        be to take Ricœur
                                        as more

                            authoritative

                                    on

                                        the subject than
                                        any or most of us.

                                        Michael


                                        -----------------------------------------------------------

                                    ---------------

                                        ------
                                        Wolff-Michael
                                        Roth, Lansdowne
                                        Professor
                                        Applied Cognitive
                                        Science
                                        MacLaurin Building
                                        A567
                                        University of Victoria
                                        Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
                                        http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
                                        <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
                                        <http://education2.uvic.ca/

                faculty/mroth/

                                        New book: *The
                                        Mathematics of
                                        Mathematics
                                        <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
                                        <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->

                                    directions-in-mat

                                        hematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-

            mathematics/>*

                                        On Thu, Apr 20,
                                        2017 at 10:38 PM,
                                        David Kellogg

                            <dkellogg60@gmail.com
                            <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>

                                        wrote:

                                            I think that
                                            "statement" is
                                            too tight, and
                                            "utterance" is too

                            loose.

                                    A

                                            statement is
                                            an
                                            indicative-declarative
                                            wording of
                                            some kind:

            we

                            don't

                                            usually refer
                                            to commands
                                            (imperatives),
                                            questions
                                            (indicative-interrogatives),
                                            or
                                            exclamations
                                            as "statements"

                            because

                                            their
                                            primary
                                            purpose is not
                                            to state facts
                                            (that is, if
                                            there are

                            facts,

                                    they

                                            are ancillary,
                                            and not
                                            constitutive:
                                            we can have a
                                            command, a

                                    question,

                                            or
                                            an exclamation
                                            without any
                                            statement of
                                            any state of
                                            affairs,

                e.g.

                                    "Look

                                            out!" "Why?"
                                            "Oh, no!"). So
                                            "statement" is
                                            too narrow.

                                            An utterance,
                                            as Bakhtin
                                            defines it, is
                                            simply the
                                            stretch of

                                    language

                                            we
                                            find between
                                            two changes in
                                            speaker (this
                                            is why a book is a

                            single

                                            utterance).
                                            This is an
                                            entirely
                                            descriptive
                                            unit: if I give

            you

                a

                                    tape

                                            of
                                            listening test
                                            dialogues for
                                            the Test of
                                            Proficiency in

            Korean,

                            you

                                            will be
                                            able to tell
                                            me exactly how
                                            many
                                            utterances
                                            there are in each

                                    dialogue,

                                            and
                                            even whether
                                            the speakers
                                            are men or
                                            women, without

                understanding

                                    any of

                                            the language.
                                            As a link
                                            between
                                            thinking and
                                            speech, such a

            unit

                            is

                                            beside
                                            the point. So
                                            "utterance" is
                                            too broad.

                                            And linking
                                            thinking and
                                            speech IS the
                                            point. I think
                                            you and

                                    Vygotsky

                                            are
                                            using the word
                                            "holophrase"
                                            somewhat
                                            teleologically,
                                            like a

                fond,

                            but

                                            expectant,
                                            grandpa. You
                                            both think
                                            that the baby
                                            who says

            "mama"

                                    really

                                            means a
                                            holophrase
                                            like "Mama,
                                            put me in the
                                            high chair". It's

                not

                                    the

                                            case
                                            that "Mama" is
                                            a reduction of
                                            a full
                                            sentence (like
                                            "Fine,

                thanks,

                                    and

                                            you?"). It's
                                            more like the
                                            Ur Wir, or
                                            "Grandwe", the
                                            "we" that
                                            pre-exists
                                            "me" and "you"
                                            the way that
                                            my grandpa
                                            pre-existed
                                            me. I am

            also

                                    using

                                            the
                                            word "wording"
                                            teleologically,
                                            you notice:
                                            "Mama" is,
                                            from the

                                    child's

                                            point of view,
                                            meaning and
                                            sounding, but
                                            not wording at
                                            all.

            But

                                            teleology
                                            is very useful
                                            here; indeed,
                                            I think that
                                            teleology in
                                            speech
                                            ontogenesis
                                            is a more
                                            useful
                                            principle than
                                            evolution:
                                            there is, after

            all,

                a

                                            "complete
                                            form" right
                                            there in the
                                            environment.

                                            The problem
                                            with Thinking
                                            and Speech is
                                            that, unlike
                                            Capital,

                the

                                    author

                                            died in the
                                            middle of
                                            writing it,
                                            and it had to
                                            be eked out

            with

                            his

                                    old

                                            articles. So
                                            although
                                            Chapter One
                                            and Chapter
                                            Seven really do

                use

                                            wording
                                            and not word
                                            as a unit of
                                            analysis (and
                                            the "phoneme" is

            really

                            the

                                            morpho-phoneme,
                                            e.g. a Russian
                                            case ending,
                                            something Vygotsky

                                    probably

                                            learned all
                                            about from his
                                            old professor
                                            Trubetskoy and his

                                    classmate at

                                            Moscow
                                            University
                                            Jakobson). you
                                            also have
                                            Chapter Five,
                                            which

                our

                                    late,

                                            beloved friend
                                            Paula Towsey
                                            loved so much.

                                            She had
                                            reason:
                                            Chapter Five
                                            is Vygotsky,
                                            and so it's

            brilliant.

                            But

                                            it's
                                            OLD Vygotsky,
                                            1928-1929
                                            Vygotsky (that
                                            was the year that

                            Trubetskoy

                                    and

                                            Jakobson left
                                            Moscow for
                                            Prague and set
                                            up the Prague

            Linguistic

                                    Circle

                                            which
                                            eventually
                                            became
                                            systemic-functional
                                            linguistics).

                Chapter

                            5

                                            is based on
                                            something from
                                            the German
                                            idealist
                                            psychologists

                            Reimat

                                    and

                                            Ach, who
                                            really DID
                                            believe in
                                            one-word
                                            concepts. And
                                            so we

            have

                            this

                                            weird
                                            block-like
                                            model of word
                                            meaning.
                                            Vygotsky tries
                                            to disenchant

                and

                                            de-fetishize
                                            the blocks by
                                            saying the
                                            concept is
                                            really the

                            process

                                    of

                                            relating the
                                            word meaning
                                            to the block,
                                            but that still
                                            means

                that

                            a

                                            concept
                                            is an
                                            abstraction
                                            and a
                                            generalization
                                            of some block-like

                quality.

                                            Chapter Six is
                                            better,
                                            because here
                                            the "model" of
                                            word

            meaning

                            is a

                                            RELATOR, like
                                            "because" or
                                            "although".
                                            Notice that
                                            these are

            the

                                    kinds

                                            of
                                            words that
                                            preliterate
                                            children do
                                            not consider
                                            words. And in

                fact

                                            that's
                                            why Piaget got
                                            the results he
                                            did--the kids
                                            really couldn't

                figure

                                    out

                                            what
                                            he meant when
                                            he asked them
                                            to explain
                                            what the word
                                            "because"

                            meant

                                    in

                                            a
                                            particular
                                            sentence--they
                                            assumed he
                                            wanted to know
                                            what the

                            sentence

                                            meant, because
                                            asking what a
                                            word like
                                            "because"
                                            means in a

                            sentence

                                            without the
                                            rest of the
                                            sentence is
                                            really a
                                            little like

            asking

                if

                                    there

                                            are more white
                                            flowers or
                                            more flowers
                                            in a bouquet
                                            of red and

                            white

                                            flowers. But
                                            suppose (over
                                            a period of
                                            some years) we
                                            give the

                kid

                                    the

                                            following

                            utterances-cum-statement/wordings-cum-wordgroup/wordings-cum-words.

                                            a) A rational,
                                            designed, and
                                            planned
                                            economy is
                                            possible in

            the

                            USSR.

                                            (Why
                                            is that,
                                            Teacher?) Oh,
                                            it is just
                                            because all
                                            the means of

                            production

                                            belong to the
                                            workers and
                                            peasants.
                                            b) Planned
                                            economy is
                                            possible in
                                            the USSR
                                            because all the

            means

                            of

                                            production
                                            belong to the
                                            workers and
                                            peasants.
                                            c) All the
                                            means of
                                            production
                                            belong to the
                                            workers and

                peasants

                            so

                                            economic
                                            planning is
                                            possible in
                                            the USSR.
                                            d) Workers and
                                            peasant's
                                            ownership of
                                            the means of
                                            production

                            means

                                            socialist
                                            construction
                                            is possible.
                                            e) Public
                                            ownership of
                                            production
                                            enables social
                                            construction.
                                            f) the
                                            proprietary
                                            preconditions
                                            of construction
                                            g) socialist
                                            property forms
                                            h) socialist
                                            property
                                            i) socialism

                                            By the time
                                            the child is
                                            the age when
                                            children beget
                                            other

                            children,

                                            this child
                                            will see that
                                            the clause
                                            wording "all
                                            the means of

                                    production

                                            belong to the
                                            workers and
                                            peasants" has
                                            become a
                                            nominal group

                                    wording

                                            "public
                                            ownership",
                                            and the
                                            nominal group
                                            wording "a
                                            rational,

                                    designed,

                                            and planned
                                            economy" has
                                            become a
                                            single,
                                            block-like word

                                    "socialism".

                                            And
                                            because for
                                            Vygotsky the
                                            "internal"
                                            really means the

                            psychological,

                                            while