[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] Translations

David, your project of tracking the various translations is valuable in itself. The work of a great and subtle writer like Vygotsky, takes a long time to make itself entirely clear though the fog of translations. And your work in that respect is important. But the problem of thoughts being lost in translation should also, in my view, not be exaggerated. For example, when a friend first brought a photocopy of the 1962 translation of T&S back to Melbourne from the States, I immediately recognised the work of a Marxist and a genius in what I read. And yet, it is said that all the Marxism and all the genius had been translated out of that work. I am now very conscious of how inadequate that edition (not to say "translation") was. There is the same issue with Hegel. Hegel is very difficult to render in any language other than German. Sometimes, there is no alternative, in decoding a particularly obtuse piece, than to use my electronic copy of his CW in German. But generally, I have to say that contrary to what some claim, it is possible to understand Hegel in English translation, even 19th century translations. And one learns, over time, the special problems, the special German words and common translation errors, etc.

So my point is: discussion of Vygotsky is a collective, shared project. If no-one is deemed to have access to Vygotsky's ideas (clear or otherwise) except if they use the original Russian, then we are all barred from discussion (unless you provide a selected retranslation for us). Therefore, for the sake of dialogue and joint discussion, we must use published English translations that we can all gain access to, read and understand, and if there is a particular problem with a particular passage (eg "remove" means "aufheben", "category" sometimes means "kategoria", "experience" is perezhivanie", "activity" is not necessarily Taetigkeit, or this or that line was omitted, etc., etc.) then someone should say so in the particular instance, and we all learn more and more as we go on, and still we all discuss the same shared text. Eventually, your work will contribute to achieving that I am sure, David.

Martin Luther and King James of England, figured it out 500 or so years ago. And who knew what God really said anyway?

OK?

comradely,
Andy
:)

David Kellogg wrote:
Well, if the Vygotsky quote does not say what I claimed it said, it is probably that I expressed my own views rather clumsily. I often do. 
 
But I'm puzzled. You yourself have said you did not want to use the MIT press version anymore. In their latest article on what needs to be done in English, van der Veer and Yasnitsky have called the Minick translation is "unusable".
 
Meccaci is the best translation we have (according to van der Veer). It's the ONLY translation of the original 1934 edition, you know; ALL the others to date go back to 1956, which has not a few political revisions.
 
Do you want the original Italian? Do you want the Russian? Do you want MY translation? I am--as ever--more than happy to oblige: just tell me what you are looking for.
 
I thought you had invented some new-fangled emoticon for expressing grouchiness. But I see you are just doing it the old fashioned way. Korean emoticons are, like traditional Korean script, read vertically; you don't have to tilt your head to see their iconicity. We also don't smile with our mouths, but with our eyes.
 
Like this: ^.^
 
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
PS: Here's something I read in Chapter Two of "Tool and Sign" this morning.
 
Как логическое следствие из признания решающей важности использования знаков для истории развития высших психических функций в систему психологических категорий вовлекаются и внешние символические формы деятельности, такие, как речевое общение, чтение, письмо, счет и рисование.
 
It says, if you trust my translation anyway, "As a logical consequence of the acknowledgement of the decisive importance of the use of signs for the history of the development of the higher mental functions into a system of psychological categories, external symbolic forms of activity, such, as verbal contact, reading, writing, counting and drawing are also implicated."
 
There are lots of interesting things here, but the one that struck me was the use of "category". It doesn't, actually, suggest a theatrical conflict. So at least as of 1930, Anton is right.
 
d
 
--- On Sat, 7/2/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 6:31 PM

David, you cast doubt on the ancient idea that mathematics is the science of quantity and said that Vygotsky was clear on this. If Vygotsky is so clear, then you wouldn't need to go to an English translation of an Italian translation to find Vygotsky refuting the idea that mathematics is the science of quantity. But your re-translation doesn't say this anyway. The colon was a typo.

-----------------

But let's take up the interesting point you raise anyway, even though it does not say what you claimed it said, it is nonetheless interesting and pertinent.

Am I right here? A child learns to survey the perceptual field and point to things one after another reciting "one," "two,"three," ... and then remember the number they say as they complete the practice. This is called "counting." And I think it is a way children learn to abstract the units from a collection in their perceptual field - pointing to each ion turn and saying the next number. So I think they don't first abstract the actual objects and then abstract number from this. Learning the practice of counting is how they learn to abstract units from a whole.

Now, and this is the wonderful thing I learnt from Anna. Just because the last number I said on completing counting wa "Five!" does not mean that I know that there are 5 things. In fact, "Five" is a property of my counting action; but I have to be taught to see "5" as a *property of the collection of actual things*. AND then I have to learn that "5" is a *quantity* (a cardinal as well as the last ordinal).

So there are two big conceptual leaps involved *after *I learn to abstract things *by counting* them, before I get to the concept of quantity ... and the beginnings of a type of mathematics (since other types of mathematics will grow from other types of quantity).

So Bill, I think the position may be this (and please, I am way out of my comfort zone here, but the July 4 holiday will be over soon and maybe the cavalry will come to our rescue.) Your kids can't see any 2s in the 5 of 54, because they see the 5 as an ordinal. They can see 2 2s in 4, because they have been told so countless times, But they haven't been able to generalise that knowledge because 5 does not "contain" 4, it is just the number "after" 4. OK? What do you think? Does that make sense?


Andy


David Kellogg wrote:
> I don't understand this, Andy. The short answer is "Sure".
>  What is YOUR short answer supposed to mean? In particular, what does the colon mean? I'm afraid the emoticons that we use in Korea are a little different.
>  dk
>
> --- On *Sat, 7/2/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>     Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
>     To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>     Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 5:33 AM
>
>     So the short answer is ":no."
>     a
>
>     David Kellogg wrote:
>     > Sure, Andy!
>     >  This is from Luciano Meccaci's translation of "Thinking and
>     Speech", Chapter Six:
>     >     > "If we may say so, the assimilation of a foreign language raises
>     the level of the maternal language (rech) for the child as much as
>     the assimilation of algebra raises to a higher level the child’s
>     arithmetic thinking, because it permits the child to understand
>     any arithmetical operation as a particular case of algebraic
>     operations, furnishing the child a freer, more abstract, more
>     generalized and at the same time more profound and rich view of
>     operations on concrete quantitites. Just as algebra frees the
>     thinking of the child from its dependence on concrete numbers and
>     raises it to a higher level of more generalized thinking, in the
>     same way the assimilation of a foreign language in completely
>     diverse ways frees verbal thinking from the grip of concrete forms
>     and concrete phenomena of language."
>     >
>     >     > David Kellogg
>     >
>     > Seoul National University of Education
>     >
>     >     > --- On *Fri, 7/1/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net
>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>/*
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
>     >     Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
>     >     To: "Culture ActivityeXtended Mind" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>     >     Date: Friday, July 1, 2011, 10:53 PM
>     >
>     >     Can you give us your reference here David, in a pubished
>     >     translation of Vygotsky?
>     >     andy
>     >
>     >     David Kellogg wrote:
>     >     > ... I don't think that quantity IS the basic concept in
>     >     mathematics, though. Vygotsky is pretty clear about this: just a
>     >     preschooler has to be able to abstract actual objects away from
>     >     groups in order to form the idea of abstract quantity, the
>     >     schoolchild has to be able to abstract quantities away from
>     >     numbers in order to form the idea of RELATIONS between
>     quantities,
>     >     or OPERATORS.
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     __________________________________________
>     >     _____
>     >     xmca mailing list
>     >     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>     >        <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>     >     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>     >
>
>     --
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     Joint Editor MCA:
>     http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
>     <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
>     Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>     Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
>     <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>     MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
>
>
>     __________________________________________
>     _____
>     xmca mailing list
>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

--
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca