Dear Vera and all
I also think that, at some level, word meaning, or meaning in general,
can also be analyzed as an activity. In a way, making meaning is in
itself an act of creating particular relationships between the
participants (in a group, a culture, an event, a situation) and a
particular content (a topic, or an object). I think that Vygotsky had
just scratched the surface -- but he had certainly scratched it in the
right way. We are used to look at language as a ready made artifact, a
tool provided by the society for the use in mediating the world of
objects to us. But, in fact, language is not a finished and ready made
artifact, but a dynamic system of activity. This is especially visible
in the analysis of metaphor as a phenomenon. So I think that the
differences in the unit of analysis between Vygotsky and Leont'ev are
more on the surface than in the deeper analysis.
What do you think?
Ana
Vera P. John-Steiner wrote:
>Hi,
>I do think the discussion is useful. If you think of CHAT as a
>functional system, then some of us, particularly with strong interests
>in language, literacy and mediation will focus more on the Vygotskian
>lineage and others involved in organizational activities on the Leont'ev
>lineage. I was just reading Gita V''s recollections, and certainly the
>two families cared for each other--so we might be able to do the same,
>focus on different aspects of the theory in our contemporary historical
>context without necessarily emphasizing the differences only but some of
>the complementarities as well. In analyzing an interdisciplinary team
>with Michele Minnis, we find the Finnish work most relevant; in looking
>at metaphors I used Vygotsky to a much greater extent,
>Vera
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ana Marjanovic-Shane 267-334-2905 (cell) 215-843-2909 (home)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 01:00:08 PST