Re: [xmca] Translations: just quit using and referring to Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1986)!!

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

PS-- It strikes me that whether I agree or disagree in individual cases,
David Ke's constant thinking about the translation/theory issue in relation
to varieties of relevant data is a useful place to look for somone seriously
trying to figure out where translation differences make a difference.

mike

2011/7/3 mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>

> A coupla remarks.
>
> I have been a huge beneficiary of the continued translations, discussions,
> interpretations of Vygotsky's work that got started in earnest in the late
> 1970's.
>
> Calling the labor prior scholars "unusuable" assumes an attitude toward the
> certainty of translation across intellectual/cultural/language traditions
> about "the one right translation" that I believe unfortunate.
>
> The word research, in English, carries within in it the spirit of inquiry
> that seems to
> fit this threat pretty well:  to research, re-search, is to search again.
> To search for meaning in those of someone's ideas that made it into print,
> giving it the illusion of "the original."
>
> The pressing question that this discussion seems to bring up is the
> following:
>
> What difference(s) does a difference in translation make? What old,
> unsolvable problems have been solved? What new apparently disparate sets of
> ideas brought
> together in a way to create deeper insight, for example, into the relation
> between thought and language? Or the developmental signicance of written
> language? Or?
>
> If our language is getting ever more precise and closer to THE TRUTH
> shouldn't we be able to think/act more effectively?
>
> I think examples CAN be found of where translation/interpretation
> differences make a difference. I would choose the scaffolding/zoped
> discussion as one arena for such an inquiry.
>
> The mis-translations of "obuchenie" I was involved in were bi-directional
> nationally and in each case traceable to implicit ideas about the domain of
> phenomena under consideration. When we first discovered this mistake, we put
> it into the LCHC newletter and teaching/learning became not only the term we
> used in our discussions, it guided the way we organized children's
> activities and how we thought about a lot of what we were doing.
>
> Hopefully July 3, 2011 is not the end of history.
>
> mike
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> A coupla remarks.
>>
>>
>> FIRST.
>>
>>
>> RE David Kellogg wrote:
>> ....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
>>
>> If only I were to speak on behalf of  van der Veer and Yasnitsky (just in
>> case, the ref is van der Veer, R. & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky in
>> English: What still needs to be done [html && pdf]. Integrative
>> Psychological and Behavioral Science; DOI: 10.1007/s12124-011-9172-9
>>  ; the full text free of charge as pdf or html is here:
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/278j5025767m2263/ ), I would simply
>> say:
>>
>> Hey, guys! Please, could you quit referring to the outdated and
>> essentially false editions of:
>> (a) Vygotsky (1962). Thought and Language and its derivative
>> (b) Vygotsky (1986). Thought and Language,
>> and, finally,
>> (c) Vygotsky (1978). Mind in Society
>>
>> Vygotsky *never* wrote *none* of these books! All of these were quite good
>> back then and very much instrumental to where we are now (and many thanks to
>> Mike Cole, Vera John-Steiner and their teams, and many others who made these
>> editions possible back then), and are totally useless now. So, again, just
>> *don't use them*!
>>
>> INSTEAD, for instance, for Thinking and Speech (also notoriously known as
>> Thought and Language, 1939, 1962, 1986), just use another translation, quite
>> imperfect, but not quite unusable and definitely the best we have in
>> English:
>>
>> ** Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S.
>> Carton (Eds.) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of
>> general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.), pp. 39-285
>>
>> SECOND.
>> As to David's remark that the Italian version of the text is the only one
>> done from the 1934 original, -- I would not be so sure about that. Thus,
>> e.g., long ago van der Veer mentioned "excellent translations" into German
>> (1964) and Danish (1982); see p. 177 here:
>> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23054700/Thought-and-Language-Lev-S-Vygotsky-(newly-revised-translated. None of the languages are really among my strengths, but anybody
>> interested is welcome to verify the van der Veer's claim.
>>
>> THIRD.
>>
>>
>> RE Andy Blunden wrote:
>> ...
>> "category" sometimes means "kategoria" ...
>>
>>
>> No, Andy. "Category" *always* means "kategoriia". And vice versa. But
>> certainly not "collision" :). Feel free to verify this in any
>> English-Russian-English (or any other)
>> dictionary
>>  available on the surface of the Earth.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Anton
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> To: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:23:40 AM
>> Subject: [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
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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