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

[Bella Kotik-Friedgut]

I Just thought that for the purpose of re-reading and re-thinking we need a
more close translation.

Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:30 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> 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.
>