Mike and all
Maybe even a Serbo-Croatian can help. A three (or four) way translation
can throw some light on the "POLAGAET". The verb has a root in "LAG" -
to "put" (down) or to "lay something down". German "LIEGEN" and English
"LAY" have the same root (LAG, or LG). Serbian translation of the
Russian "Polagaet (polozhit)" is "PRET-(PO)STAVITI" which means "to
assume", but literally it means "to make it STAND in front of you" == or
in English "to underSTAND" -- to put it down in front of you.
In Serbian, it can also act as a synonym for "imagine".
It is an act of focusing one's attention to an object (predmet) - "to
put it down in front of one's mind's eye". Even the act of focusing
attention onto something, gives this something an "ideational" dimension
- a dimension of a relationship between a person who perceives it and
the object itself.
What is important, I think, for describing the semiotic function, is
that language makes it possible to "hold" the "ideational" aspect of an
object in mind, and to orient others toward the same object.
Mike, I think that all these "digressions" we are experiencing are
actually necessary because they deal with central aspects of language. I
am learning a great deal. And I agree that we should follow this part of
the discussion on language, by reading Ilyenkov.
Ana
Mike Cole wrote:
> Hi Sasha-- your English is just fine, thanks very much!
>
> How can we plan for, and organize, "the detailed discussion of the
> subject" of "predmet" and "predmetnaya deyatel'nost"? At present we
> are seeking to reach at least a place to pause, rest, and reflect
> on the discussion of CHAT and SFL. We have made a little headway, but
> the subject keeps slipping between the letters on our keyboards and
> slithers away through our differening schedules, backgrounds,
> and committments.
>
> We have some key readings we have committed ourselves to for this
> exercise. There is a promised reading of an Ilyenkov chapter waiting
> to begin when the organizers feel the time is ripe. Every discussion
> opens onto more discussions.
>
> Might you proposed some readings that we could read together, say, in
> the fall, that would address Barbara's question? Perhaps we will get
> some help from Yrjo and Michael R, but they may be too busy with
> other matters to respond and we clearly need a combination of Russian,
> German, and English (a least!) contributors to give Barbara the kind
> of answer we all need.
>
> Perhaps others have organizing suggestions?
>
> Meantime, what I take for your note is that perhaps the first two
> chapters of Ilyenov's *Dialectical Logic" might be added to our reading.
>
> mike
>
> PS. Pologaet. I think I would translate this as "presumes" or
> "assumes" not poses. But I sure could be wrong!
>
>
> On 7/11/05, *Alexander Surmava* <monada@netvox.ru
> <mailto:monada@netvox.ru>> wrote:
>
> Dear colleges,
>
> As far as my English allows me to understand the theoretical
> nuances Barbara hits the mark with here question. The "distinction
> between object, and object embedded in activity" which is
> definitely "related to the German concept of Gegenstand" or
> Russian terms "predmet" or "predmetnost" is the core problem of
> the so called "AT". And that's why one can answer to Barbara's
> question only by formulating the whole Activity Theory.
>
> But that is only the first and relatively simple problem. The
> second and much harder one are the theoretic difficulties with the
> Activity Theory itself. In spite of the fact that "predmet" and
> "predmetnaja dejatelnost" (object related activity – if I've
> correctly translated the Russian term) are the fundamental
> category of A.N.Leont'iev's conception Leont'iev himself could
> hardly give the clear and consistent answer to Barbara's question.
> That's why the answer to here question needs the solving not a
> kind of training task, but real research work.
>
> Recently Wolf-Michael Roth put forward a question "why does nobody
> talk about those who took Vygotsky's work further?" I agree with
> him and I'd like to stress that it is useless to try to study the
> CHAT theory concerning exclusively to L.S.Vygotsky and
> A.N.Leont'ev because… they didn't left us any finished theory.
> Vygotsky died at the peak of his powers. He had brilliantly put
> the questions but he had too little time to give the answers.
> A.N.Leont'ev and other members of vigotskian schools of thought
> did their best to continue the investigation. But they've done
> what they could do. A.N.Leontiev in his last days have confessed
> that he failed in solving some fundamental theoretic questions. So
> we have noting to do but to try to make the next step in solving
> this theoretic problem ourselves. And it is quite real task for us
> because now we are armed much better then our predecessor were.
> The great step forward in the field of theoretical psychology was
> done after mid thirties of the last century by Evald Ilyenkov,
> Vasiliy Davidov, Felix Mikhailov and their collaborators. So
> trying to give an answer to Barbara's question we need to reread
> the first two chapters of EVI's "Dialectical logic" for a start.
>
> Running a few steps forward I can assert that "predmet" is a
> category relevant to life as itself. The living subject (a
> unicellular organism, a plant, an animal or a human) puts (or
> poses = "polagaet" – rus.) the "predmet" by its spontaneous vital
> activity (the idea of this approach derives from Fichte). This act
> of posing (akt polagania) is not a mental act, but realizes by
> sensual contact with an external perceptible thing. In abstraction
> from this contact (from activity of living subject) the external
> thing stays in its mechanical or chemical properties and doesn't
> exist in relation to living subject.
>
> Here I have to stop because the detailed discussion of the subject
> demands substantially more time…
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sasha Surmava
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mike Cole
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2005 7:02 PM
> *To:* Barbara Crossouard
> *Cc:* eXtended Media, Culture, Activity
> *Subject:* Re: [xmca] LCA:Complementarity
>
>
>
> I am unsure of the answer to your question, Barbara. I can help
> more with Russian than with German. I expect that
>
> either Yrjo, who was an advisor to Kirsten's thesis or
> Wolf-Michael Roth can provide a better answer than I could.
>
> And thanks for asking! I do not understand if, ask Yrjo has
> written. "the activity is the context" one can make a distinction
>
> between " object, and object embedded in activity."
>
>
>
> Lets hope we can get some help!
>
> mike
>
>
>
> On 7/11/05, *Barbara Crossouard* <bcrossouard@macdream.net
> <mailto:bcrossouard@macdream.net>> wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> As one of the silent readers so far, I'm encouraged by your appeal
> below for questions.. In trying to engage wtih activity theory, I
> discovered recently the distinction between object, and object
> embedded in activity, which I understand is related to the German
> concept of Gegenstand. Not being a German speaker however, I am
> trying to work out if I have any handle on the distinction. I
> should say that although I came across gegenstand in Leont'ev, it
> didn't mean anything to me in his text, and it's only by reading
> Kirsten Foot (2002) Pursuing the Evolving Object, in MCA vol 9
> issue 2, that I picked up on the distinction to any extent.
>
> To check my understanding, I am wondering if what Ruqaiya raised
> in general terms below about developing an academic identity, if
> this can be related to gegenstand for example, where an academic
> progressively develops both within a conceptual framework at the
> same time as contributing to it in a dialectic way, and if for me
> at the moment, as a doctoral student lurking at the edge of this,
> and looking for a way of conceptualising what I'm researching, if
> that might be an instance of an evolving object. Is that the way
> this distinction might be applied - would appreciate any comments.
>
> It seems this distinction is important in the formation of
> activity systems, but I don't often see it raised, as Kirsten also
> points out in her article.
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
>
>
> At 14:27 06/07/2005, you wrote:
>
>> Phillip-- Seems to me that it is simply axiomatic that we cannot
>> fully understand a system we are inside of.
>> Yesterday several of us at LCHC discussed the need, once we are
>> through all the papers, to double back
>> and try to summarize the major points that have emerged with
>> general agreement and to identify (potential)
>> points of disagreement. Given our different languages of
>> description (passim Ruqaiya via Bernstein) finding
>> REAL disagreements is likely to be difficult because we will
>> constantly be confusing concepts that are derived
>> from somewhat different theoretical approaches and will not catch
>> the differences. But it is worth a try.
>>
>> Ruqaiya-- We do not disagree about the restrictions of Luria's
>> central asian work so far as I can tell. You have
>> made the point convincingly that the interpersonal uses of
>> language/mind are underplayed in the Russian
>> cultural-historical tradition as represented in the readings we
>> have discussed and that is certainly true of
>> Luria's central asian work.
>>
>> By coincidence. I was thinking of all of Luria's work on
>> neurolinguistics and the followups of that work by
>> Akhutina and others when, our of the great byte bucket in the
>> sky, I received a note from Tanya Akhutina
>> this mornig about another matter. Given that many of those most
>> knowledgeable about SFL are more or
>> less unavailable in the next couple of weeks it seems impossible
>> to consider adding to the readings for
>> now. We need to get a more comprehensive overview of what we have
>> collectively learned, or produced (at
>> least that would be my priority). But we WILL return to this
>> topic, in January if not before, when we have
>> another course on mediational theories of mind, and when we do,
>> we need to open up the issue of how to advance
>> the idea of developing the ideas of complementarity that have
>> been in this discussion. (I am still made uneasy
>> by the slippage in AALeontiev's work regarding language and
>> activity, but that may be my shortcoming. Perhaps
>> an effort at summarizing will reveal a fuller picture; perhaps a
>> more extensive discussion of Landolf and Thorne will
>> help, I am unsure).
>>
>> Anyway, at LCHC there will be some efforts in this direction and
>> help from ALL would be appreciated. What questions
>> do those who have been silent have? Questions are so helpful in
>> revealing areas of understanding and differences in
>> interpretation or simply holes in what we are talking about.
>>
>> Off to other matters for a while.
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On 7/5/05, *ruqaiya hasan* < Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au
>> <mailto:Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au>> wrote:
>>
>> yes Mike, you are right, but there is a slippage here. Most of the
>>
>> experiments in Luria concerned concept formation, classification,
>> and/or
>>
>> (syl)logical reasoning; these are often also cited as the prime
>> examples of
>>
>> higher mental function -- which is what might explain the
>> slippage, though
>>
>> not quite excuse it! I will certainly be more careful with my
>> formulation
>>
>> next time.
>>
>> Yes, I like this listserve precisely for the reason that it opens up
>>
>> different orientations to the same problem -- that's great and I
>> certainly
>>
>> hope that I am learning from it. One thing that might perhaps be
>> already
>>
>> available somewhere information about which might help is a
>> Readings Advice
>>
>> section (preferably for people like me a graded list!) which
>> might guide one
>>
>> into understanding the vocabulary (what Bernstein used to call
>> "the language
>>
>> od description"). Something of that kind would help me immensely
>> with the
>>
>> concept of activity.
>>
>> I use "politics of academia" as another expression referring to
>> roughly what
>>
>> Bourdieu called "appropriation of intellectual capital". There is
>> also what
>>
>> Bernstein's phrase"formation of pedagogic identity"; we learn
>> through one
>>
>> theory and may be 'the least effort principle' persuades us to
>> stay within
>>
>> those safe boundaries.
>>
>> Ruqaiya
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Mike Cole" < lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
>>
>> To: "ruqaiya hasan" < Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au
>> <mailto:Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au>>
>>
>> Cc: "eXtended Media, Culture, Activity" < xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 9:10 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] LCA:Complementarity
>>
>> Hi Ruqaiya-
>>
>> It is only late in the day that I have time to get to xmca.
>> Perhaps in time
>>
>> for your morning cofee?
>>
>> Anyway, the passage about Luria I was referring to is the
>> following: With
>>
>> regard to his Uzbek subjects Luria suggested that the absence of
>> higher
>>
>> mental functions was due to
>>
>> the lack of schooling in his subjects, as if the lack of
>> schooling, ie
>>
>> failure to 'benefit' from official
>>
>> pedagogy.
>>
>> Yes, Ochs at least (I only have a couple of the books here)
>> references
>>
>> Halliday. But he does not appear
>>
>> to be a key figure in her fermament. Nor, desipte Gordon's gentle
>> urging,
>>
>> has he been one in mine. A number of
>>
>> the criticisms fairly levelled at Vygotsky could easily be sent
>> my way as
>>
>> well, I am sure.
>>
>> It seems to me that one important function of an enterprise such
>> as this
>>
>> (eXtended mind, culture and activity)
>>
>> sort of discussion group is the cross-polination of ideas that it
>> affords.
>>
>> And the acdemic politics are greatly
>>
>> muted by the highly distributed nature of the discussion -- very
>> few of us
>>
>> have, or care to have, control over the
>>
>> academic fates of those with whom we are conversing. But we know
>> we don't
>>
>> know, even if it is that we don't
>>
>> know what it is that we don't know that we should know. And to
>> those who are
>>
>> in it as a matter of politics, good luck
>>
>> to them. They would almost certainly be better of at the moment
>> studying how
>>
>> to do research on education that
>>
>> wins the approval of our education bureaucracies or learning how
>> to conduct
>>
>> fmri studies of undergraduates solving
>>
>> math problems.
>>
>> I think that the set of article laid before us provide a lot of
>>
>> opportunities for learning. Whether we avail ourselves of
>>
>> the opportunity or not is pretty much up to the participants.
>>
>> On to the rest of the days xmca thoughts.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/05, ruqaiya hasan < Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au
>> <mailto:Ruqaiya.Hasan@ling.mq.edu.au>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Hello Mike
>>
>>> yes I am in total agreement with you. If something I wrote gives the
>>
>>> impression that Luria thought his Uzbek subjects did not have
>> 'higher
>>
>>> mental
>>
>>> functions' then that is a bad piece of writing by me, for which
>> apologies.
>>
>>> In fact I can't quite recall but somewhere I have expressly
>> quoted Luria
>>
>>> as
>>
>>> attributing the results to the educational experience of the
>> subjects (may
>>
>>> be in Reading picture reading: a study in ideology and inference
>> in Foley
>>
>>> (ed) Language, Education and Discourse. London: Continuum 2004).
>> And I
>>
>>> also
>>
>>> share your "scepticism about the enthusiasm for schooling that Luria
>>
>>> espoused". I guess I was arguing more that knowing the careful
>> thinking of
>>
>>> both Vygotsky and Luria, it is to be doubted that they would have
>>
>>> attributed
>>
>>> the Uzbek results to absence of higher mental function; I was
>> particularly
>>
>>> keen to bring into the debate that the "symbolic" function of
>> language as
>>
>>> envisaged by Vygotsky is a function that every normal human has;
>> if that
>>
>>> is
>>
>>> the quality of language essential to semiotic mediation then all
>> of us
>>
>>> have
>>
>>> this experience; if there are distinct orders of semiotic
>> mediation (shall
>>
>>> we say Bernstein's codes) then it is only reasonable to ask that
>> they and
>>
>>> their etiology be identified nonambiguously. Has this been done?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> On Ochs and Schiefflin, I guess their work post-dates
>> Halliday's. Are
>>
>>> their
>>
>>> many references to Halliday in their work? SFL linguists
>> typically like to
>>
>>> have an explicit analysis of language along with statements relating
>>
>>> language to culture, cognition etc. So that maybe one reason for
>> the
>>
>>> absence
>>
>>> of reference to Ochs and Schiefflin's work. On another tack, I
>> have often
>>
>>> thought it would be great to have someone doing their doctoral
>> research on
>>
>>> "the politics of academic referencing"!
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Ruqaiya
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>> From: "Mike Cole" < lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
>>
>>> To: "eXtended Media, Culture, Activity" < xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 3:18 AM
>>
>>> Subject: [xmca] LCA:Complementarity
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Bruce tells me that my problems with receiving xmca messages has
>> been
>>
>>> fixed.
>>
>>> We'll see.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Based on my readings of Wells, Halliday, and Hasan, I find the
>> proposal
>>
>>> for
>>
>>> the complementarity
>>
>>> of LSV, Halliday, and Bernstein compelling. This past winter I
>> conducted a
>>
>>> graduate class where
>>
>>> we read Jim wertsch's 1985 book on Vygotsky and the Social
>> Formation of
>>
>>> Mind
>>
>>> which Ruquaiya
>>
>>> refers to in her first article in the readings. Jim focuses
>> there on
>>
>>> discourse and propositional referentiality
>>
>>> and his commentary seems important background for actually
>> working out a
>>
>>> unified cultural historical
>>
>>> approach that incorporates contemporary work on lexiocgrammar.
>> But I do
>>
>>> not
>>
>>> know how to bring that
>>
>>> into a discussion that is already packed with things to read.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I also believe that the work of Ochs and Schiefflin, who make a
>> strong
>>
>>> case
>>
>>> for the idea that the acquisition
>>
>>> of language is simultaneously acquisition of the sociocultural
>> order into
>>
>>> which children are born needs to be
>>
>>> brought into the discussion. It seems to fit very well with
>> Halliday's
>>
>>> emphases but does not seem to been
>>
>>> into the discussion by SFL folks, or at least, not in my limited
>> reading.
>>
>>> Does anyone else think this work
>>
>>> relevant?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There is one point on which I think Ruqaiya errs in her
>> discussion of
>>
>>> Luria's Central Asian work (if I understand her
>>
>>> characterization correctly) and it is important to get straight
>> in seeking
>>
>>> to deal with issues of cultural historical variation
>>
>>> in thought. It is not the case that Luria claimed that Uzbeki
>> peasants
>>
>>> lack
>>
>>> higher psycholgical functions. All humans
>>
>>> are said to have higher psychological functions by virtue of the
>> fact that
>>
>>> their thought and action is mediated by
>>
>>> culture. Rather, as Wertsch discusses, LSV and ARL believed that
>> one must
>>
>>> include an analysis of evolution/development
>>
>>> of cultural means as a cultural historical process. They use the
>> term
>>
>>> "rudimentary" mediational means, for example, in
>>
>>> connection with what they referred to as "primitive peoples."
>>
>>> Specifically,
>>
>>> Luria believed that traditional central asian
>>
>>> peasants used functional graphic modes of mediation which were
>> superceded
>>
>>> by
>>
>>> taxonomic logical modes of mediation
>>
>>> associated with literacy, schooling, and involvement in
>> industrial modes
>>
>>> of
>>
>>> life.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I have my quarrels with Luria's conclusion and share scepticism
>> about the
>>
>>> enthusiasm for schooling that Luria espoused. But
>>
>>> it is not correct, in my view, to believe that he attributed only
>>
>>> elementary
>>
>>> (not culturally mediated) forms of mental life
>>
>>> to Uzbeki peasants.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> This issue may not be central to the question of the
>> complementarity of
>>
>>> the
>>
>>> views of Halliday and Vygotsky, but it certainly
>>
>>> touches directly on questions of Bernstein/Luria/LSV
>> connections, so I
>>
>>> wanted to raise it here. I still have Ruqaiya's second paper to get
>>
>>> through and look forward to others comments on this work.
>>
>>> mike
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>>
>>> ----
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>>> > xmca mailing list
>>
>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>> >
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ----
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> xmca mailing list
>>
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> xmca mailing list
>>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:05 PDT