Hi Ana and everybody--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ana Marjanovic Shane [mailto:shane@voicenet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:27 PM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: translation
>
>
> Hi,
> I like Il'enkov's definition of znachenie as "a collective fossil" of the
> "activity ideal". It connects to what Helen said about "an organized
> history of previous speech acts and their contexts".
Nice point and actually Il'enkov made it as well. He also talked about
networks of sociocultural activities that support Ideal as smysl and Ideal
as znachenie.
> But, this dynamic,
> historical aspect is not the only one in the relationship
> between "smysl"
> and "znachenie".
> I would like to point back to the fact that word-znak (sign) is a
> socially
> organized MEDIATOR and coordinator of various hazy, private,
> senses (smysl
> -s). And therefore it probably plays the role of a "scientific" concept
> which helps organize and develop everyday notions and thoughts.
>
> Jay also pointed out that there is no clear cut distinction between
> connotation and dennotation ( where the pair can be loosely mapped on
> smysl-znachenie pair).
I like Jay's point. However, smysl is much bigger than mediation. According
to Il'enkov, even znachenie can be unmediated. Think of affordances, for
example (only an example). I have to run to the University but Ana's message
affords me to reply -- it is stronger than my commitment to sit on
committees :-) If Il'eknov would have known Gibson's notion of
"affordances", he would say that affordances are unmediated Ideal of an
object. Other example of unmediated smysl can be social relations... But I
really need to run, sorry!
Take care,
Eugene
>I think that the point is in a constant shifting
> between the two and in a constant tension between the two. I am the this
> point reminded on Vygotsky's theory of art where he compares the
> "meaning"
> of an art form to the tension that gets built up between an expected form
> and the variation to that form. In other words - neither one of
> the two can
> exist without the other - our intuitive smysl-making and goal oriented
> subtext would be left on the level of animal communication with a lot of
> drama but a little of thought - and the other way around - if we only had
> signs and no sense and subtext we would be - I guess, computers - which
> cannot really communicate.
> But, on the other hand, even if we feel that the two are all the time
> shifting positions, mingling and migrating and that they cannot be
> completelly anaylically grasped, I think that a dynamic description of a
> particular history of a speech act is possible - only we still
> have to find
> out how to do it...
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ana
>
>
> At 06:37 PM 04/04/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> >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 - 09:21:13 PDT