Hi Ana and everybody--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ana Shane [mailto:shane@voicenet.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:03 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: sense/meaning
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
> Just a small comment/question on the following part of your posting:
>
> >I really like Leigh*'s map metaphor: "znachenie" (i.e.,
> conventional sings)
> >is a boundary object that coordinates individuals' "smysl's" (i.e.,
> >individual's thought-intentions). It is important to mention that
> >individuals' "smysl's" also involve conventional signs (e.g., words in
> >private speech) but their use can be non-conventional, personal,
> particular,
> >unique, and contextual. Similarly, "znachenie" also involves
> >thought-intentions but these thought-intentions are impersonal,
> >decontextualized, general, and abstract. Vygotsky was very much concerned
> >about this decontextualization -- he believed that liberation
> from immediacy
> >of the context is a very progressive and developmental process.
> This is my
> >$0.20 about Vygotsky's use of these terms.
>
> Does this imply that there could be no meaning without "znak"s
> (conventional signs) but sense (smysl) could be there although it
> would be
> unbound and uncoordinated??
Yes.
In my view, there are many ways to share personal smysl-meaning.
Articulation and use of conventional signs is only one way to do that.
Another is to engage other people in your personal intentions, goals,
volitions, responsibilities. In this case, smysl-meaning is shared and
coordinated but not necessarily articulated. For example, when you encounter
an unfamiliar word in reading a book, you can try to articulate it for
yourself by using a dictionary or you can get along with its use of the
author in hope that you will get it later. If you choose the second
approach, even if you get the word, you may have trouble to articulate for
yourself and others what it means.
Back to Vygotsky, I think he always prioritized meaning making through
articulation (and literacy) over engagement as developmentally more advanced
(like school does).
> Also, it is interesting to note constant fluctuations between the
> developmental directions (from smysl to znachenie and from znachenie to
> smysl).
> I would also like to add that what is usually being taken for the
> development of meaning is in fact the development of the
> conventionalizations of signs. The other, not less important
> aspect of the
> development of meaning is the development of very complex and
> multi layered
> "senses" (smysl's) which always carry their historical
> trajectories within
> themselves.
Yes, smysl-meaning is always a network. Smysl-meaning is a whole that has
itself as a part.
What do you think?
Eugene
>
> Ana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:11 PDT