Vygotsky often referred back to cultural artifacts - totem pole for
example - to explicate his emerging view of sign. Maybe because an
artifacts purpose is partly to help us remember, so in that sense it
always a sign.
I see it very much along the lines of function. I could use a pitch
fork to pitch the hay (tool) but then I could stick in the ground to
remember where that big hole is (sign) but anywho its a cultural
artifact either way.
N
I like to think of a stop sign. One could I suppose pull it out of the
ground and use it as a shovel, but we don't.
MnFamilyMan@aol.com wrote:
> Steve;
>
> Thank you for the support. I don't have time to get into specifics at
> this time but one of the themes I am now struggling with is cultural
> artifacts v. psychological tools. It appears at times that current
> theorists who write about these two themes appear to interchange
> them. Is this a misperception that I am having or is commonly
> accepted that these are one and the same? Did Vygotsky intend for
> psychological tools to be referred to as cultural artifacts or did he
> view psychological tools as being separated into his concepts of
> 'everyday' skills and 'scientific' [i.e. cultural] skills? Perhaps I
> am reading something wrong in what epople are writing, could someone
> please comment to help elucidate this perception?
>
> Steve, as the school year goes on I could certainly comment on the
> birding exercise if that is something you are interested in.
>
> eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST