Dear Vera and everybody--
Vera wrote,
>I think the
> notion of sign adds to the interpretation of meaning, but the dichotomy
> implicit
> in some of our discussions may be shifted if we think of these two
> aspects of meaning (core meaning and sense as a system with different
> aspects gaining temporary salience in a specific context.)
In my view, in English the word-term "meaning" is a *partial* overlap of the
Russian words-terms "smysl" and "znachenie." Smysl and znachenie are not
oppositions in colloquial Russian. However, Vygotsky made them oppositional
by focusing on internal-external and personal-social oppositions. I wonder
how much Vygotsky was influenced by Soussur's (sp?) opposition of
parole-language (what Vygotsky discussed as speech-language opposition).
As far as I remember, there is an interesting discussion of smysl-znachenie
by Soviet philosopher Edvald Il'enkov who seemed to get away from Vygotsky's
oppositions. Il'enkov made a link between smysl and an ongoing
socio-historio-cultural activity in the present contexts -- "ideal" (i.e.,
goals, values, emotions, subjectivities, social relations, community
memberships). He defined znachenie as "a collective fossil" of the "activity
ideal." If I remember correctly, he made an interesting illustration of his
definitions with the word "bread" (in Russia bread is considered to be the
most important food and almost necessary part of any meal -- even for vodka
:-). For a hungry peasant, bread means heavy labor (i.e., smysl). For a fed
dweller of city, bread has znachenie. But this znachenie will quickly become
smysl as soon the dweller gets hungry; although city dweller's "bread ideal"
("smysl") is obviously different than peasant's one. So Il'enkov's concept
of "ideal" oscillates between smysl and znachenie.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vera P. John-Steiner [mailto:vygotsky@unm.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:30 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: Re: translation
>
>
> Hi Eugene et al,
> I think the way in which meaning and sense have been interpreted by
> English speaking folks is a useful one. Sense is linked, in my
> understanding to subtext, which highlights the possibility of bringing
> contextualized, personal (but still negotiated) understandings to a
> word.
> I am a litle concerned about re-arranging all this with new
> interpretations.
> (Is this a reflection of creeping old age on my part?) I think the
> notion of sign adds to the interpretation of meaning, but the dichotomy
> implicit
> in some of our discussions may be shifted if we think of these two
> asoects of meaning (core nmeaning and sense as a system with different
> aspects gaining temporary salience in a specific context.)
> Vera
> P.s. if you want to put this on the network, fine, I just noticed that
> the message is addresssed to you, Eugene.
> --
> ---------------------------------
> Vera P. John-Steiner
> Department of Linguistics
> Humanities Bldg. 526
> University of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> (505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
> Internet: vygotsky@unm.edu
> ---------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:12 PDT