[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Leontiev and Sign
The questions L is asking make me think of the linguistic anthropologist
Michael Silverstein. (Anybody here have views of his work?) A relevant
collection, including some Silverstein, but also Wertsch, Holzman, and
others is SOCIAL AND FUNCTIONAL APROACHES TO LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT, edited
by Maya Hickmann, Academic Press 1987. There's only one Leontyev ref in
the index, which is in a string of citations incl. Vygotsky, Luria,
Leontyev, Scribner & Cole, LCHC 1981, and Wertsch. That appears in a
chapter by Elinor Ochs, with whom, if I'm not mistaken, David Kirshner has
had some acquaintance.
L's conjecture (below) seems harmonious with Peirce, it seems to me,
except that Peirce would start not with perception, but with "feeling,"
which we can't really know directly because it is eclipsed by any thinking
about it. But Peirce was very much concerned with how more advanced signs
spring from and depend on such things as feeling and perception. Again,
though, the caution that he wrote as a logician, not as a psychologist or
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
In his letter to Vigotski, A. N. Leontiev wrote about a number of theoretical
that he understood "fundamental". The fifth one touch the problem of "sign".
He said, for instance that "my intuition here is that the sign is the key!"
I think that is very important to recognize that Vygotsky's theory is also
an activity theory, but is there some study that searchs Leontiev's contributions
to "semiotic mediation" theory?
"5. In addition to these it is essential to work out theoretical questions,
directly guiding specific research.
It seems to me that among them belong: (a) The problem of F[unctional]
S[ystems]: ?possible? (i.e., something like quantum) I[nter]f[unctional]
relations and ?possible? functions of functions (after all a system is not a
spring salad, but something presupposing only the possible, i.e., certain
combinations); (b) Determination of i[nter]f[unctional] relations (the conditions
under which they arise, the process of their birth, factors (= determinants);
here an experiment in their artificial formation is necessary,
that is, a ?dynamic argument? is needed, an experiment along the lines of
?ingrowth?). Here, it is necessary to think through the place, the role of
the sign; my belief, or more precisely, my intuition here is that the sign
is the key! Roughly speaking, the first operations with quantities involve
perception, further, the f[unctional] s[ystem] of perception, an
intell[ectual] operation. What has transformed the perc[eption] of quantities?
this simple operation, into a higher intell[ectual] function? The
inclusion of a unique sign?the concept of numbers, that is, the sign, a
medium of intell[ect] (thought!). If this concept is real, then perception,
operations with quantities using it specifically, is also included in a
syst[em] of conceptual thought. This is all very crude and the example
has not turned out successfully (it seems?there is no time to think!);
(c) The problem ?intellect?will,? that is, the problem (figuring out the
problem!) of intention (this is already a given!); and (d) personality as a
syst[em] expressed in concr[ete] problems, that is, how it is formulated."
(LEONTIEV, 2005, pp. 74-75)
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 43, no. 3,
May?June 2005, pp. 70?77.
© 2005 M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Acesse seu Hotmail de onde quer que esteja através do celular. Clique aqui.
xmca mailing list
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
xmca mailing list