[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Dodgy Formulations
Dear Bella:
Thanks for your help. Yes, "in the way" is a pretty good gloss for "culture" in all kinds of ways!
Of course you are right; one must translate and not interpret. But I don't do the actual translation in our group, since my written Korean is a mess (I just BARELY passed the written exam for permanent residency, and only on the second try!) My job is explaining what the text means; we have real Koreans to do the translation.
One of the accusations against Vygotsky made after his death was that he was an eclectic. This is, of course, very hard to square with his complete commitment, almost devotion, to methods one can only describe as Marxist.
But then there ARE passages that make you think of Whitman:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself.
(I am large; I contain multitudes....)"
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
--- On Sun, 4/3/11, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Dodgy Formulations
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2011, 12:20 AM
**
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:47 AM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
> I have three questions about "Tool and Symbol", which we are translating
> into Korean.
>
> Question ONE (Collected Works, Volume Six, p. 13). Vygotsky and Luria write
> this about Kohler's ape experiments:
>
> В классическом исследовании использования орудий обезьянами В. Келер
> наблюдал форму поведения, которая может быть названа чистой культурой
> практического интеллекта, достаточно развитой, но не связанной с
> использованием символа.
> I THINK THE FIRST TRANSLATION IS CORRECT BRCAUSE IN RUSSIAN "CULTURE" IS
> USED ALSO CLOSE TO MEANING "THE WAY OF"
> I gather that чистой культурой практического интеллекта means something
> like a "pure culture of practical intellect", which is what both Hall and
> the Vygotsky Reader have. But in the context it seems to me that what LSV
> and ARL are really saying is that it is a practical intellect which has been
> cleaned or purified of all culture, that is, one that has only a natural
> history and no cultural history at all.
>
>
> Question TWO (Collected Works p. 15):
>
> LSV and ARL write this:
>
> С генетической точки зрения мы склонны представлять общую
> последовательность основных ступеней развития речи так, как это
> формулируется, например, Д. Уотсоном: внешняя речь . шепот . внутренняя речь
> или, иначе говоря: внешняя речь . эгоцентрическая речь . внутренняя речь.
>
> That is, LSV and ARL are giving the history of speech as external
> speech-->whispering-->inner speech "иначе говоря" external
> speech-->egocentric speech-->inner speech.
>
> I gather that иначе говоря means something like "in other words", or "that
> is to say". But this is simply IMPOSSIBLE. How could LSV and ARL equate
> whispering with egocentric speech? They are functionally and structurally
> utterly different.
>
> Is it reasonable to use иначе говоря here just to indicate that they are
> both stuck in the middle, and to call being stuck in the middle begin part
> of a genetic sequence? This just can't be right.
>
BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WRITE "IN OTHER WORDS" IN TRANSLATION YOU MAY
COMMENT ON WHAT YOU THINK, BUT ONE CAN NOT INTERPRET WHILE TRANSLATING
>
> Question THREE (p. 14):
>
> LSV and ARL are discussing the difference between the way a child solves a
> banana-and-stick problem with speech, and the way an ape solves the same
> problem. I am already somewhat uncomfortable with the whole discussion,
> because although LSV and ARL present this as the most important genetic
> point in the whole of the child's development, they are doing it
> fetishistically, as a matter of substituting a sign for a tool, rather than
> talking about what the sign really represents (viz. empathy, a theory of
> mind, collaboration, cooperation). They write this:
>
> С того момента, как ребенок с помощью речи начинает овладевать ситуацией,
> предварительно овладев собственным поведением, возникают радикально новая
> организация поведения, а также новые отношения со средой. ("From that
> moment on, as the child begins to grasp the situation with the aid of the
> speech, having first mastered his own behavior, a radically new
> organization of behavior appears, alongside a new relationship with the
> environment.")
>
> What am I to make of this? It looks to me like LSV and ARL have the child
> mastering his own behavior BEFORE the child has grasped the situation. In
> other words, inner speech before egocentric speech, and egocentric speech
> before social speech. How is this different from the position of Piaget?
>
DO YOU MEAN THAT PREVERBAL BEHAVIOR IS NON- INTENTIONAL? ABSOLUTELY
UNCONSCIOUS?
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
__________________________________________
_____
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