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

[Andy Blunden]

I guess I should speak for myself.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Larry Purss wrote:
> Andy,
> You mention we have not satisfactorily answered the question of  the 
> inner form of the word. 
> Are you aware if Vladimir Zinchenko's chapter has been discussed, as 
> he contributes a close reading of Vygotsky which he then expands by 
> bringing in Shpet.
>
> Vladimir at the end of his article presents a hypothesis on the 
> "origin" of the internal form of a word, a person, an image, and an 
> action. He states:
>
> "My hypothesis is that in the course of lively, active, or 
> contemplative penetration into inner forms of the word, symbol, 
> another person, a work of art, or nature, including one's own nature, 
> a person is building his or her internal form and *expanding the 
> internal space* of his or her soul."
>
> Has Vladimir's hypothesis been explored that it is in the penetration 
> into inner forms that the inner forms are being built AND expanding 
> the internal space?
>
> Vladimir's chapter is an invitation to consider this hypothesis
>
> Larry
>
>  
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>     Larry Purss wrote:
>
>         Henry
>         I am referring to chapter 9 in the book "The Cambridge
>         Companion to
>         Vygotsky"
>         Here is the link to google books
>
>         https://books.google.ca/books?id=pn3S9TEjvUAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
>         <https://books.google.ca/books?id=pn3S9TEjvUAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false>
>
>         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
>         Vygotsky.
>
>         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
>         Larry
>
>         On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, HENRY SHONERD
>         <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>          
>
>             Larry,
>             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.
>             Henry
>                
>
>
>
>