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

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

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 Blunden*

Larry Purss wrote:
I am referring to chapter 9 in the book "The Cambridge Companion to
Here is the link to google books


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

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

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

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.