Re: [xmca] Vygotsky and Saussure

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Mabe the "eyes" have it?
mike

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Louise Hawkins <l.hawkins@cqu.edu.au>wrote:

> The other questions that come to mind following Monica's questions relate
> to whether this 'ear' has any connection with auditory processing?
>
> Regards
>
> Louise Hawkins
>
> Lecturer - School of Management & Information Systems
> Faculty Business & Informatics
> Building 19/Room 3.38
> Rockhampton Campus
> CQUniversity
> Ph: +617 4923 2768
> Fax: +617 4930 9729
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica Hansen [mailto:monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2009 11:15 AM
> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Vygotsky and Saussure
>
> Martin asked: If I lost the ability at around 8 months of
> age to make or recognize phonemic distinctions that are irrelevant to
> my native language, how on earth can I regain that ability in a
> university extension course?
>
> Even though the question was rhetorical, I wondering if there is something
> in it that we should consider in relation to teaching? Does it seem that
> some people have a better "ear" for distinguishing these sound
> distinctions,
> whether phone or phoneme? And that maybe this so called "ear" is more a
> facet of heightened conscious perception? The question I would like to ask
> is can the development of this ability be mediated in some individuals or
> all individuals? Can it be forced?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:32 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky and Saussure
>
> David,
>
> It's a very interesting manuscript, for sure.
>
> At the top of page 272 LSV writes that "mastering the structure of the
> relation of the phoneme and the phone in one particular case, the
> child masters the structure as a whole." Leaving aside the claim made
> here, the use of both 'phoneme' and 'phone' here suggests that two
> distinct terms were used in the Russian, though how consistently they
> were translated I can only guess.
>
> A phone is a sound considered outside language, right? An [x] rather
> than an /x/. In a previous life (well, a previous country) I took an
> extension course in phonetics. I got the lowest passing grade and I
> (like to) think that my poor performance was due to my skepticism over
> the IPA. It's a way to describe phones, if I remember correctly:
> recognizing and characterizing sounds as they are produced without
> reference to any specific language's phonemic system. (Hence the
> 'I'nternational.)
>
> But how is this possible? If I lost the ability at around 8 months of
> age to make or recognize phonemic distinctions that are irrelevant to
> my native language, how on earth can I regain that ability in a
> university extension course?
>
> (That's a largely rhetorical question.. But feel free to answer it if
> you wish.)
>
> Martin
>
> On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:37 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> > Martin,
> >
> > Both Andy and I are very interested in Volume Five, the unfinished
> > manuscript on Child Development in the Collected Works.
> >
> > On pp. 272-273 LSV talks about "phones" instead of "phonemes". I
> > think this is a correct translation, and "phonemes" is an incorrect
> > one. I don't have the Russian original, though, so I can't be sure.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> > --- On Tue, 7/28/09, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky and Saussure
> > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 12:03 PM
> >
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > In Problems of Child Development LSV writes that language shatters
> > the unity of infant and world. Your examples of the painter and
> > gymnast help us recognize that this rupture cannot be complete or
> > final. Both are kinds of work in which successful practice depends
> > on an embodied embeddedness in concrete reality.
> >
> > But at the same time I think LSV is right to write of rupture, and
> > of the importance of language. First, he's right to insist that the
> > child is born embedded, and so he rejects the built-in mind/world
> > dualism that is presupposed by cognitive science. But, second, he's
> > right to say that in development this immediacy is disrupted so that
> > a mind is formed. The preschool age child is a dynamic part of their
> > situation and responds without pause to its demands. The school age
> > child, he writes, has lost this spontaneity. Language changes the
> > child's relationship to the world in large part by picking out
> > aspects of the situation as a distinct (kind of) 'thing.' It comes
> > 'between' person and world, is an important part of the child's
> > differentiation from other people, and soon will be the basis for a
> > division between 'inner' and 'outer' aspects of the child's
> > personality, dividing her from herself.
> >
> > A good gymnast or painter finds ways to suspend or overcome or
> > forget these divisions. But equally an adult without language would
> > not be able to be a painter or gymnast, even if they could put paint
> > on canvas or spin on a beam, because 'painter' and 'gymnast' are
> > positions in a social reality which someone without language would
> > be unable to adopt.
> >
> > still dancing
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >
> >> Martin,
> >> We've been round this mulberry bush before, so I suspect David
> >> might agree with you, but I differ.
> >>
> >> As I recall, LSV claims that word-meaning is the unit of analaysis
> >> for intelligent speech and therefore the "microcosm" of
> >> consciousness.
> >>
> >> So LSV agreed with Marx, as do I, that practice, or artefact
> >> mediated action is the unit of analysis of consciousness.
> >>
> >> all linguists of course disagree. But I wonder if a painter would
> >> agree, or a gymnast?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> Martin Packer wrote:
> >>> David, ...
> >>> meaningful-sound is a concrete phenomenon, located in place and
> >>> time. And he promises that we will thereby find the unity of
> >>> thinking and speech, of generalization and social interaction, of
> >>> thinking and communication, of intellect and affect. In short, of
> >>> consciousness.
> >>> No? Yes?
> >>> Martin
> >>> On Jul 25, 2009, at 3:25 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>> Martin:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, definitely! If you read pp. 49-50 in the Minick translation
> >>>> of Thinking and Speech, we get Vygotsky's remarks on Saussure's
> >>>> phonology in pure form. Of course, he rejects (again and again)
> >>>> the Saussurean view of semantics; it's nothing but
> >>>> associationism. But since he rejects associationism on the basis
> >>>> of its arbitrariness, its lack of an intelligent link, and its
> >>>> lack of system, he has to reject Saussurean phonemes too, no?
> >>>>
> >>>> No! As you say, there are two points here for Vygotsky to
> >>>> appropriate. The first is that the phoneme is part of a gestalt,
> >>>> specifically, a contrast with some other word (e.g. "back" and
> >>>> "bag"). But the second is that that gestalt is defined by MEANING
> >>>> and not by sound.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is where Vygosky really parts company, not only with
> >>>> Saussure and structuralism but also with Gestaltism. For
> >>>> Saussure, the relationship between phoneme and meaning is
> >>>> entirely arbitrary; but for Vygotsky it is fully determined by
> >>>> the social situation of development.
> >>>>
> >>>> For Gestaltism, the structural relationship is not unique to
> >>>> language; it's shared with perception. But for Vygotsky the
> >>>> consciousness that is created by thought is never reducible to
> >>>> the consciousness that is created by perception.
> >>>>
> >>>> The question I have is what Saussure would have made of all this.
> >>>> Saussure was actually quite skeptical about his own system; he
> >>>> had good reason to instruct his wife and students not to publish
> >>>> any of his work. And as the article Mike sent around (on the
> >>>> Mandelshtam poem) makes clear, he had big big problems with
> >>>> precisely the concepts at issue: the arbitrariness and linearity
> >>>> of language.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that Vygotsky doesn't really use the word "phonetic" very
> >>>> much. The word which is usually translated as "phonetic" is
> >>>> actually "phasal". But in the example Vygotsky gives about the
> >>>> psychological vs. grammatical predicate/subject, where he talks
> >>>> about psychological/grammatical gender, and number, and even
> >>>> tense, it is very clear that for Vygotsky ALL the linear aspects
> >>>> of language, the aspects which (unlike thought) include TIME in
> >>>> their compositionality, are to be considered "phasal", not just
> >>>> phonetics.
> >>>>
> >>>> David Kellogg
> >>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Fri, 7/24/09, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Intensions in context and speech complexity ;
> >>>> From 2-?
> >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 8:03 AM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 2:46 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>   I think Vygotsky actually finds the single kernel of truth in
> >>>>> Saussure's course when he argues that a science of phonetics
> >>>>> needs to be founded on MEANING MAKING and not on the physical
> >>>>> description of noises people make with their mouths. However,
> >>>>> his ability to find this kernel in a mountain of structuralist
> >>>>> chaff should not deceive you; he is no uncritical consumer of
> >>>>> Saussureanism.
> >>>>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Coincidentally I was reading yesterday the section in Problems of
> >>>> Child Psychology (vol 5 of the Collected Works) where Vygotsky
> >>>> again makes this point.  It is evidently Saussurian linguistics
> >>>> that V is enthusiastic about: he refers to it as phonology and
> >>>> contrasts it with an older phonetics which focused solely on
> >>>> articulatory definitions. Phonology has the advantage of seeing
> >>>> the sounds of language as a system, and so the child never learns
> >>>> a single sound in isolation but always one sound against the
> >>>> background of the others. V points out that this is a basic law
> >>>> of perception: figure/ground, and also that the ground in the
> >>>> case of oral language is provided by the speech of adults (so the
> >>>> 'ideal' endpoint of development is present and available from the
> >>>> start, as emphasized in the passage that Lois quoted a few days
> >>>> ago).
> >>>>
> >>>> V is critical once again of analyses that divide a phenomenon
> >>>> into elements and in doing so lose the properties of the whole.
> >>>> Phonology, he says, has the advantage that in studying the sounds
> >>>> of a language as a system it doesn't divide it into separate
> >>>> elements, nor does it lose the central property of language,
> >>>> namely that it has meaning. V adds that sounds always have
> >>>> meaning: "the phoneme," he writes "is not just a sound, it is a
> >>>> sound that has meaning, a sound that has not lost meaning, a
> >>>> certain unit that has a primary property to a minimal degree,
> >>>> which belongs to speech as a whole" (271).
> >>>>
> >>>> V's analysis makes a good deal of sense to me. But my own limited
> >>>> knowledge of Saussure - guided in part by Roy Harris' writing -
> >>>> has indeed included the dogma that the sound level of language
> >>>> carries no meaning. You are saying, I think, that V has a
> >>>> reasonable reading of Saussure, if not the canonical one. Can you
> >>>> say more about this way of reading Saussure? V seems to be
> >>>> suggesting that the child does not learn first sounds, then
> >>>> words, but always acquires the sounds of language in the context
> >>>> of the use of words in communicative settings, and this has the
> >>>> consequece that the sounds would be aquired as aspects of a
> >>>> meaningful unit. Am I on the right track here?
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin_______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>> Martin Packer, Ph.D.
> >>> Associate Professor
> >>> Psychology Department
> >>> Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15282
> >>> (412) 396-4852
> >>> www.mathcs.duq.edu/~packer/ <http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/%7Epacker/>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Andy Blunden (Erythrós Press and Media) http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >> Orders: http://www.erythrospress.com/store/main.html#books
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Martin Packer, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Psychology Department
> > Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15282
> > (412) 396-4852
> >
> > www.mathcs.duq.edu/~packer/ <http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/%7Epacker/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> Martin Packer, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Psychology Department
> Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15282
> (412) 396-4852
>
> www.mathcs.duq.edu/~packer/ <http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/%7Epacker/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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