Judy,
First, this isn't meant to be an argument but I sincerely don't understand
how you can hold that there is no distinction between "comprehension" and
"interpretation." I've read Bakhtin as well and I find no basis for the
distinction you make in his work, at least insofar as by "comprehension" I
mean the base level of understanding necessary to know what is being said.
For example, when you hear Chinese, Laotian, or any other language you don't
understand -- you don't comprehend what is being said.
But it's even more than just understanding a language, it can also happen in
a language that you do understand, that you don't comprehend what was said.
During the past week or so I've had a very classic example iof this
situation in the CTC/internet access project I'm working on that I've
mentioned before. We have about 6 kids who are participating in an
afternoon class to learn to use video cameras and an entire array of quite
sophisticated multi-media software; scanners, audio and digital editing
equipment, Mac G4s, etc. The person who is responsible for teaching these
kids how to use the equipment and teach them all about producing videos,
says things like; "you want to make sure you frame the shot with the
principal subject occupying the middle 50% of the frame" or "you take the
VHS and digitize the video portion using the <technical name for digitizing
apparatus>." As he does this he's rapidly pushing buttons, unpacking types
of multi media storage media that these kids have never seen before, rapidly
putting it in the machine, etc. etc. Now these kids have about 3rd and
4th grade reading and math levels being among that percentage of our
society's children that seem destined to occupy the lowest rungs of the
socio-economic ladder (somebody's got to be there in capitalist society)).
So a lot of what he says isn't really comprehensible to them with all the
associated consequences-- My role is to intervene in the process, to get
him to bring his instruction, somehow, into their ZPD if you like, which of
course would be totally impossible if I didn't have some notion of what they
comprehend and don't comprehend or if I didn't comprehend what he's saying
(i'm sort of like a translator or a meta-translator if you like). For
example, the number line which is absolutely indispensable for digital
video editing at some point. This has everything to do with comprehension
although I do admit that the best way to bring about that comprehension
entails the creation of situations in which these kids begin to express
themselves (interpret) using the TOOLS and realizing the horizon beyond the
one they're working at (e.g., since they've seen hundreds of movies and
videos they already know what can be done) then, the idea goes, this desire
will serve to draw them to make the effort to learn what they don't
comprehend. I suppose y ou could call it the creation of a contradiction
between what they want to do and what they;re able to do if you'd like, in
recognition of the fact that this is somehow related to CH3 LBE and ZPDs,
and being on a virtual raft with the contemporary equivalents of Huckleberry
Finn.
But none of that would even be conceivable if I were to abandon the notion
of "comprehensibility" as I described above. A teacher accompanies the kids
(you'd hardly know she isn't one of them, just a wee bit older, looking
maybe like 19 rather than 14 but definitely not a standard, "good morning
children, my name is Miss Kerbopolis"). She has been describing to me that
kind of narcoleptic trance the kids can fall into because the tech
instructor tends to go over ideas too fast and also to talk to technically.
She brightened up quite a bit when I asked her what their reading level was,
whether they could work with a number line and how well they did percentages
(most not at all). The technical instructor doesn't recognize the existence
of different skill levels; he assumes everyone can understand a schematic
diagram of the lay out of the machines in the multi-media lab, for example.
She knows, on the other hand, that even these rather rudimentary diagrams
must be studied. A certain comprehension of the boxes and the arrows must
be acquired and comprehended before the diagrams can be interpreted. Of
course the best way is to simply start using them, but how do you use them
if you don't understtand how they work, this of course is one of the
contradictions for the tech instructor who has his own ZPD but it's a
different one that the kids ZPD. All of these tools must be comprehended so
that the kids can interpret the messages they see on various counters,
dials, and screens to be able use the equipment to EXPRESS themselves
however they want, to make a video of their own life and community where
they write the script, shoot the tape, edit the master, and make a video
that really does look like a REAL ONE, which is what they want to do. They
don't really want make-believe but they also haven't really believed they
could really do it the right way, the real way. As one girl confided to me
as the technical instructor digitized the video tape they had just shot, "I
don't really have nothin' to do with computer stuff." It was a mix between
a statement of her past and an expression of how she sees herself and
therefor how she's sees what she will do in the future. That's what we're
working to change but it will require her to learn that, yes, she can
comprehend (not simply interpret) all those machines and how they work.
The difference, as I see it, lies somewhere in the relationship of the
horizons of comprehensibility and the envisioned possibility of what could
be done, and it's got to be FUN, at least for these kids whose attention
span is about 20 minutes max unless they're really having FUN, so it's FUN
for me to set the situations up in which the technical instructor and the
kids meet on a common ground and see the learning happen and the desire
quicken but this depends on my understanding of what the kids don't
comprehend in what the instructor is saying (and just as much letting it be
when they do comprehend so they'll know they are really actively
participating, not just listening passively, cuz they don't know how to
learn like that. That's a skill they never learned . And to do this, I
don't even have to worry about how they interpret what they don't comprehend
because once they're having fun doing activities that will naturally lead
them to desire the comprehension they lack, (i.e., actively working with the
tools that require that comprehension to use at all) those old
interpretations (say like mythology in the history of the human race) just
seem to fade away .
So basically I'm saying again what I've said consistently. It's just not
all just interpretation. There is a distinction between comprehending what
exists independently of any individual's consciousenss of it and to which
any individuals consciousness must accomdate itself if the individual is to
get past it (to convert it from a horizon of limitation to an element of an
action, if you like) and the interpretation of it. Some things are mainly
interpretation, others aren't. There are certain structures, patterns,
processes and situations that have a description that must be used if any of
the succeeding levels and possibilities of interpretation are at all
possible. If you don't comprehend the language for describing it then you
don't even come close to the level of interpreting anything expressed in
that language..
What do you think?
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: . rRe: reflection (on ending duels - still belabouring)
>
> Paul, it's pretty clear to me that there is no such a thing as
> comprehension that is not also interpretation,
> and no matter what the topic or the listserve, an email message is not and
> can never be equivalent to its supposed explicit referential meanings.
>
> I and many others here have found Bakhtin very helpful for articulating
why
> that is.
>
> Judy
>
> On the other hand, listservs devoted to topics in
> The only time anything
> >clear cut would emerge would be when someone made a statement that was
> >simply a misrepresentation of the text at the comprehension, not the
> >interpretation level;
>
>
>
> eg, statements to the effect that 2+2=5 or that
> >Vygotsky's dog salivated upon hearing the bell ring, or other such
> >statements. If such statements are made and someone else points to the
> >error it would seem that we would fall back on the first rule
(non-activity
> >system derived -- rather using Lakoff's principle that conversation is
meant
> >to be helpful) to determine whether the individual or the interaction is
the
> >focus of the assertion. And sometimes people, through this process, also
> >find out that they were mistaken and improve their comprehension in the
> >process. So you ask: does the person say: "Q is not X" or does she say
"You
> >are wrong that Q is Y."
>
> >I guess it just goes to show that their are boolean and fuzzy list servs
and
> >activity systems and that people in fuzzy ones shouldn't blame other
> >people's understanding/insight/judgment/personality/character/etc in
> >disagreements about where the boundary is.
> >
> >Paul H. Dillon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:07 PDT