In a message dated 2/12/2002 2:56:38 PM Central Standard Time,
cunningh@indiana.edu writes:
> ? Does a word have a history?
1. Language's Influence on Development
In Vygotsky's 1927 crisis article he writes,
Any word is a theory. To name an object is to apply a concept to it.
Admittedly, by means of the word we wish to comprehend the object. But each
name, each application of the word, this embryo of science is a critique of
the word, a blurring of its form, an extension of its meaning.
Although this quote does not display the finality of what Vygotsky was trying
to say regarding language's influence on the development of higher
psychological functions it does provide insight into his explanation of how
the development of those functions occurs. Further writing by Vygotsky
concerning the fallacies and unfulfilled postulates of earlier psychological
researchers is available in The History of the Development of Higher Mental
Functions, original publication of chapters 1-5 of this document was in
1931(Vygotsky, 1997). The full 15 chapters were only made available to an
English language readership in 1997. A condensed version of this document
contributed to the 1978, Mind in Society (Glick, 1997).
In Chapter 12 of, "Development of Speech and Thinking." He writes,
Now let us imagine to what extent the whole development of the child's
thinking changes depending on the work of the sensory apparatus: when the
child's eyes are directed toward two objects, a closure occurs, a connection
is formed between the two objects and the child makes a transition from the
natural form of thinking to the cultural form which humanity has developed in
the course of social relations. This occurs when the child makes the
transition to thinking with the help of speech, when he begins to talk, when
his thinking stops being only a movement of excitation from trace to trace,
when the child moves to speech activity, which is nothing other than a system
of very fine, differentiated elements, a system of combinations of the
results of past experience. We know that not a single spoken expression is
repeated exactly as another expression but is always a combination of
expressions. We know that words are not simply individual reactions but part
of a complex mechanism, that is, a mechanism of the connection and
combination of other elements (ppg. 198-9).
The explanation regarding the person's development of consciousness is during
the transition from reflexive excitations to "speech activity", the
development of consciousness mediates further development within the
individual so that scientific complexes are formed that allow a person to
further direct their own activities in ways that initiate learning (Vygotsky,
1999). This mediated learning is something that takes place within a
construct Vygotsky termed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
1. Distinguishing Vygotsky from Piaget
It is important to note that Vyotsky believed Piaget's views helpful for
understanding how people develop and regarding Piaget's influence he writes,
"It is not an exaggeration to say that he revolutionized the study of the
child's speech and thought. He developed the clinical method for exploring
childten's ideas that has since been widely used (Vygotsky, 1999, pg. 12)."
Vygotsky claims that an emphasis of the quality of development rather then
quantity is the fruit of Piaget's studies (ibid). Regardless of Vygotsky's
praises for Piaget's methodology he nonetheless refutes Piaget's thoughts on
how children's consciousness developes (ibid). Vygotsky further elaborates on
Piaget's error by stating, "In his attempt to substitute functional
explanation for the genetic explanation of causes, Piaget, without noticing
this, made vacuous the very concept of development (ibid, pg. 42)." In this
statement Vygotsky disputes Piaget's theorizing regarding a genetic catalyst
for development. After writing for 46 pages regarding Piaget's error (ibid)
he declares that in fact the opposite of a genetic catalyst is true; that by
taking in all that is in the environment the child's precursor to any
connection being made is the stimulus from the environment; through the
process of making these connections the child is able to develop further
strategies for making new connections and refining old connections (Valsiner,
1997, Vygotsky, 1999). Vygotsky writes, "Piaget does not see a child as a
part of the social whole. Social factors are shown as an external force that
enters the child's mind and dislodges the forms of thinking inherent in the
child's intelligence (ibid, pg. 45). Because Piaget places such emphasis on a
genetic foundation for consciousness his explanation of logical thinking is
unduly bound to syncretic thought patterns that are unable to develop as the
child experiences success processing environmental connections; Vygotsky
writes, "We are inclined to think (and our experiments bear us out) that the
child thinks syncretically in matters of which he has no knowledge or
experience but does not resort to syncretism in relation to familiar things
or things within easy reach of practical checking . . (ibid, pg. 54)."
Vygotsky effectively replaces Piaget's established hierarchy of cognitive
stages that supercede each other as the child matures with a theoretical
construct that allows the child to develop greater understanding of their
world based on their experiences without losing previously used processes
(ibid).
Everything has a history. Paul mentioned this in his posting but by using
such a "loaded" term as dialectic materialism it loses its power.
Sort of in the same way that f*** has lost its power and now has migrated
into the undergroung of unexceptable language.
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST