[Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]

[HENRY SHONERD]

Martin,
Thank you very muchfor the article on Sheet. I think the readings and dialog generated will help me understand much better Vygotsky and his context by getting a better grip on the long view, through the eyes of hermeneutics. Do you know when the Freiberger-Sheeikholes article was written?
Henry

> On Jan 24, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> 
> I am sure that there are differences between LSV and Shpet, as Larry points out. But there are also striking similarities. Here is a little background:
> 
> Martin
> 
> <Freiberger-Sheikholeslami 1985 Gustav G. Shpet He.pdf>
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Martin will be sending us an article on Shpet.
>> I therefore did some background exploration and discovered that Shpet and
>> Vygotsky differed on the notion of "oscillation".
>> Vygotsky believed thought and language oscillated while Shpet disagreed.
>> 
>> Zinchenko clarifies Vygotsky's understanding in this paragraph
>> that Zinchenko wrote in his chapter "Thought and Word, the Approaches of L.
>> S. Vygotsky and G. G. Shpet": It uses the metaphor of rain [which I
>> associated with the other thread on rain]
>> 
>>   "Thought and word are no less polyphonic than mind.  Yet, there is a
>> long way to go to arrive at this conclusion.  And it is hard to
>> overestimate the input of Shpet and Vygotsky, along with Aleksandr Potebnya.
>>   Out of all the polyphony of mind and thought, out of all the various
>> possibilities of origins, Shpet and Vygotsky   gave their preference to the
>> word, although they understood it differently.  Let us start from
>> Vygotsky's metaphorical description: *What is simultaneous in thought is
>> successive in language.*  It would be possible to compare a thought with a
>> cloud that showers a rain of words.  This is why the transition from
>> thought to language is a very complicated process of *dismemberment* of a
>> thought and its recreation in a word.  On the next page, Vygotsky wrote,
>> 'continuing this picturesque comparison, we should liken the motivation of
>> thought to the wind that sets the clouds in motion.'  If something can *pour
>> itself, *it means that it already exists.  Therefore we can understand the
>> given metaphor as saying that thought, already existing is *expressed *in a
>> word"  [emphasis in the original]
>> 
>> This quote draws attention to Vygotsky perceiving *oscillation *behind the
>> movement of thought and language. Shpet did not see thought and language as
>> oscillating.  Zinchenko's goal in his article is not to place the
>> approaches of Shpet and Vygotsky in opposition but to present them as
>> mutually complimentary approaches.
>> 
>> I hope to learn from others on the complexity of the notions of
>> oscillating movement of thought and language situated within words.
>> Polyphonic notions
>