[Xmca-l] Re: the genetic roots of thought and speech

[mike cole]

David, Larry, Bella et al--

I, too, have been reading ch4 of T&L, but in the 1987 edition, where the
passage in question is at the bottom of p. 115.

Earlier, on p. 114 of this edition LSV writes that the expressive function
of egocentric speech that accompanies a child's activity becomes thinking
"in the true sense of the term" when it "assumes that  function of a
planning operation or the function of resolving a problem that arises in
behavior."

In the sentence right before the quoted/discussed passage he refers to
"intellectual activity in the true sense of the word."

I am finding this re-reading very thought provoking and in places puzzling.
The idea that "there is no sharp metaphysical boundary between the external
and internal in behavior" caught my attention with respect to issue of
whether or not LSV was a closet dualist.

Bella-- What do you think the significance of the variations in translation
concerning the area of overlap of thinking and speech vis a vis "verbal
thinking" portends for our understanding?

mike

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com
> wrote:

> If the passage cited is the end of paragraph 3, then I have to correct
> translation:
>
> we (are forced to) CAN  conclude that FUSION of thought and speech, in
> adults as
> well as in children, is a phenomenon limited to a CIRCUMSCRIBED area OF
> VERBAL THOUGHT, WHILE OTHER AREAS OF
> Nonverbal thought and nonintellectual speech STAY ONLY UNDER A WEEK,
> DISTANT NON IMMEDIATE INFLUENCE OF THIS FUSION AND ARE NOT RELATED TO IT
> CASUALLY.
>  do NOT participate in THIS
> FUSION and are affected indirectly by the processes of verbal thought"
>
> SEEMS IT HAS SOME DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.
>
> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:25 AM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Message from Francine:
> >
> > Keeping in mind that deafness alone does not mean one is mute.
> > I have met many deaf people who speak, and also use sign language.
> > But in Vygotsky's era, techniques for teaching the deaf how to speak were
> > just being developed.
> >
> > There might be something in the Volume from the Collected Works on
> > Defectology that would clarify Vygotsky's position on sign language as
> > a non-vocalized form of speech, and whether Vygotsky thought it could be
> > internalized and used to consciously direct one's thought processes.
> > Afterall, didn't  Vygotsky spend seven years (1917-1924) teaching how
> > to teach the deaf (at a teacher's college in Gomel)?
> >
> > I recall a passage in Vygotsky's writings where he says that the problem
> > with
> > deaf education (in his time) was that sign language was only taught for
> the
> > purpose of communicating with others (and not for self-regulation).
> > Perhaps, his daughter Gita's work in deaf education developed ways to
> teach
> > the use of sign language for self-regulation of thought processes.
> >
> > Please note: that defectology and deaf education are the terms that were
> > used in
> > Vygotsky's era.
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
> > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 01:13:07 +0000
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: the genetic roots of thought and speech
> > >
> > > Lawry
> > >
> > > Don't agree with this at all... Sign language is surely mediated by
> > gestures rather than vibrations of vocal chords, but still has all the
> > hallmarks of semiotic mediation Vygotsky elaborated, including inner
> speech
> > and higher cognitive functions (potentially).
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > > On 24 Dec 2014, at 01:00, "larry smolucha" <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Message from Francine:
> > > >
> > > > This reminds me of a debate that I had with Greg Thompson over a year
> > ago
> > > > about hearing impaired people  who do not have speech
> > > > but use hand sign language. Hand sign language is a sensori-motor
> > semiotic
> > > > systems that communicates thoughts to others. This is a semiotic
> > fusion that
> > > > does not involve speech. Dance is another sensori-motor fusion with
> > thought
> > > > (which is itself based on sensori-motor experience). Visual symbols
> > systems
> > > > are another.
> > > >
> > > > My reading of Vygotsky is that only speech vocalizations that fuse
> > with thought
> > > > (based on sensori-motor experience) can produce 'word' meanings that
> > are internalized
> > > > as the inner speech that creates higher mental functions (consciously
> > regulated
> > > > thought processes).
> > > >
> > > >> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:54:14 -0800
> > > >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
> > > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l]  the genetic roots of thought and speech
> > > >>
> > > >> Francine asked us to re-read Chapter 4 "the Genetic Roots' of
> Thought
> > and
> > > >> Speech.
> > > >> This paragraph was critical
> > > >>
> > > >> "we are forced to conclude that FUSION of thought and speech, in
> > adults as
> > > >> well as in children, is a phenomenon limited to a CIRCUMSCRIBED
> area.
> > > >> Nonverbal thought and nonintellectual speech do NOT participate in
> > THIS
> > > >> FUSION and are affected indirectly by the processes of verbal
> thought"
> > > >> [Vygotsky, page 48]
> > > >>
> > > >> Reading this opens for me the question of all the other functions of
> > speech
> > > >> in the adult that are not directly influenced by thought and all the
> > > >> functions of thought that are not affected by speech.
> > > >> In particular are there forms of *imaging* that are thoughts but not
> > > >> functioning in speech. Do these paths of image and thought also
> > develop and
> > > >> fuse?
> > > >>
> > > >> All the functions that Vygotsky explores in the primates and in
> > children
> > > >> PRIOR to the reciprocal interweaving of thought and language
> continue
> > to
> > > >> function in adults. For example the sounds of speech as offering
> > "release
> > > >> from tension or anxiety" or the sounds as ways of *connecting* and
> > > >> *bonding*.
> > > >> It seems that to privilege the fusion of thought and language as
> > dominant
> > > >> modes of designing places/spaces [such as the third space] makes the
> > other
> > > >> functions [speech alone] [thought alone] nondominant modes when the
> > > >> necessity for connection may be prior to and dominant when
> reflecting
> > on
> > > >> the fused mode of thought and language as a partial unity.
> > > >> In other words, the unit of analysis is the relation of thought
> alone
> > AND
> > > >> speech alone AND image alone AND all their actual fusions as other
> > partial
> > > >> modes.
> > > >> This as a multi-modal understanding.
> > > >> I hope this is the right length
> > > >> Larry
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>



-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch.