Eugene,
you said,
"I personally would feel much more comfortable to translate "smysl" as
"meaning" (the reverse to the current use) and "znachenie" as
"signification."
What about generalization which was how Rafal referred to Vygotsky's use of
meaning. In regards to signification it seems to be different at least my
familiarity with the term.
Signification is used a lot in post theorizing in which the classical
signified/signifier relationship has been inverted to a signifier/signified
one. Walkerdine explains this in the context of Freud and Lacan. I would
explain it as rather than the signifier representing the "real", it makes or
constructs the real. The relationship is reversed.
I think generalization might capture Vygotsky's use of meaning better
especially in reference to how "meaning" develops toward decontextualization
and rationality.
What is interesting, and pertinent I think, is not only the translation
culturally but historically. Is to "mean" or to "sense" the same today as it
was in the 1930's.
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/
schmolze@students.wisc.edu
****************************************************************************
****************
"Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a
radically new approach
to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this
conclusion by a
special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In
contrast to the view
that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we hypothesized
that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as the
child's position in society changed
in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in
origin and,
consequently, social in content."
D. B. El'konin
****************************************************************************
****************
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:47 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: translation
Hi Mike, Nate, Dot and everybody--
Mike wrote,
>
> Eugene-- Zachem nenavidet protsess perevoda? Eto zhizn! :-)
>
> You really surprised me when you wrote:
> I hate this translation game but for some reason, I'm not sure
> that English
> words "meaning" and "sense" are the same as Russian "znachenie"
> and "smysl."
>
> How in the world, under what conditions, would you expect such terms
> to have cross-cultural equivalents?
Mike, I like translation process. The reason I hate what I call "a
translation game" is that because there are very few people on xmca who
speak Russian and can disagree with me -- so I feel myself as if I'm "the
expert" on Russian and even on Vygotsky (and I hate this feeling).
Nate wrote,
> I read through your message, but was unclear how it diverged from the
> Vygotsky/Leont'ev quotations. I agree with you about
> translations which was
> why I made sure the Russian word was there hoping a response.
There is nothing wrong with the quotations... except they can be misleading
for an English only speaking community. What is misleading? The English word
"meaning" does not connote with "sign" while in my view, however it is a
very important point in Russian word "znachenie"
The following two definitions of the word "meaning" fit beautifully the
Russian word "smysl" (and not "znachenie"!)
"3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his
pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of
the city?” (O. Henry)." (Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language, Third Edition )
The English word "sense" is too close associated (for me) to "perception"
and nothing to do with intention. It connotes with capricious, somewhat
arbitrary, "vague feelings" (a quote from the dictionary) -- it can be "bad
subjectivity." The Russian word "smysl" does not have these connotations, it
involves a system of personal intentions and goals.
I agree with Nik Veresov as cited in Dot's message,
> 5) I would just like to quote Nik Veresov in a draft of a paper he sent
> concerning the problems of "sense and meaning" in Russia, although I do
> not have the title his paper: "In 1928 Vygotsky was speaking about
> "meaning-based structure" using the terms smysl [sense] synonymously
> with znachenie [meaning]. This circumstance that is extremely important
> was not taken into account in translations of Vygotsky's works.
> Znachenie was very often translated as sense (or even significance) and
> sometimes as meaning, whereas smysl was very often translated as meaning
> ands sometimes as sense."
> Perhaps it is important is to see how the Russian readers determine the
> use of these two terms, and see how it all fits into the world today.
I personally would feel much more comfortable to translate "smysl" as
"meaning" (the reverse to the current use) and "znachenie" as
"signification." The latter is probably a bit awkward for English ear but I
think that this awkwardness can be useful in creating new "meaning" and new
"signification" in English to fit Russian. Awkward translation (i.e.,
unusual use of words in another language) can be very useful because it
stops the reader and make him/her think and find broader means for
understanding. It is better than misleading easiness.
I hope that I did not confuse you all -- the topic is very confusing.
What do you think?
Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:11 PDT