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

[Xmca-l] Re: Help With Russian: фон



A Meta-comment: My impression, from the outside, Larry, is that not only is "figure or background ... an open fluid dynamic relational process," but the theoretical framings within which these matters are considered also are fluid and changeable, to the point that one can't really know if the claims one makes are claims about the phenomena in question or simply implicated in one's discursive structure. One hopes that the philosophical framings are sufficiently firm and stable so that one can keep track, but the sad irony is that philosophic erudition serves just as often to complexify as to simplify. 
David

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:11 PM
To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help With Russian: фон

David,
I cannot give an answer to your specific question, but I hear a more general question in the *background*.
If the *phone* is *figure* then can it also be considered *background*.
Is this an either/or question or is the dynamic of *focus* and *attention to* [perception and action] [intentional and unintentional] a continually open question.

This seems to be a general question of *form* or *gestalt* [and Merleau-Ponty also used the term *structure*]

Merleau-Ponty suggests that whether a form is considered figure or background is an open fluid dynamic relational process depending on the particular situation emerging or unfolding.
What was figure may become background and what was background may become figure.
This also can bring in the relation of *between* and *within* as fluid boundary markings or gestalt forms.

This returns to the ongoing topic and  theme of the place of gestalt psychology in both Vygotsky’s and Merleau-Ponty’s projects.
An ongoing conversation.

This months article is exploring intersubjectivity and *joint action* However is joint action conscious action or nonconscious action. Is this an either/or relation? Or is this another fluid gestalt where what was nonconscious becomes conscious within particular situations.
*Forms* can also be thought of as *figures* & *configurations* as another gestalt relationship.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David Kellogg
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:59 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Help With Russian: фон
-
I have a problem--a homophone in Russian. The word "phone" can mean two
things:

a) "phone": that is, the actual sound that we hear in speech, such as the
/b/ in "big".

b) "field": that is, the POTENTIAL sounds that form the BACKGROUND of
identifying a particular sound, such as the /p/ we do NOT hear when we hear
"big" rather than "pig".

Here's what Vygotsky says (this is the Russian Collected Works, volume 4,
p. 354, also English Collected Works, volume 5, p. 271).

Характеризуя развитие устной детской речи, надо указать, что оно происходит
не по типу письменной речи, не по типу изучения иностранного языка, а как
бы по средней линии между этими двумя типами, линии, которая теперь
выявляется. Благодаря слушанию речи взрослых ребенок имеет гораздо более
обширный фон речи, чем те «фигуры», которые есть в его распоряжении. Как
только возникает фонема со своим фоном, возникают и аналогичные структуры,
т. е. восприятие идет структурно.

And here's the problem. I this goes something like:

"In characterizing the development of oral speech in the child, it's
necessary to point out that it takes place not according to the type of
written speech (that is--all of a sudden, with the child acquiring the
writing system and being able to write anything he hears--DK) nor according
to the type of studying foreign languages (that is--word by word by word,
with the child having to learn each word and each wording in a new
context--DK) but, as it were, at a midpoint in the continuum between these
two types, a line which can now be thus construed.  Thanks to the fact that
he hears adult speech, the child disposes of a very much broader range
of background/phones (фон--DK) of speech than the "figures" which he had at
his disposal. As soon as one phoneme emerges with its phone/background
(фон--DK) analogous structures also emerge, i.e. perception goes on
structurally."

So--two questions about this:

a) Is it REALLY legitimate to translate фон as BOTH the figure AND the
background? It does seem to me that "phone" is figure when we consider the
act of perception, but it is background when we consider the act of
generalization, sort of like today's weather, which is figure when we
consider the act of perception but background when we think of tomorrow and
tomorrow.

b) It's not THAT clear why this locates oral speech midway between written
speech on the one hand and foreign language speech on the other. I gather
than Vygotsky is arguing that the child doesn't acquire the whole system
instantaneously (the way that Korean children acquire the Korean writing
system, which is so regular that it can easily be learnt in three hours or
three days and then applied to almost anything they hear) because the child
doesn't yet know all the words but on the other hand the child's experience
of speech is much broader than the child's experience of proto-speech was
during infancy making generalization possible. Am I reading too much into
this?

David Kellogg
Macquarie University