RE: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groundbreaking discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Mind in Society, Vygotsky's Paedology of 1931, and psychoanalysis)!

[larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>]

Comments from Francine Smolucha:
Robert,
I think that you make an important point regarding the lived experiencethat underlies the theoretical model. This also gives us an insight intowhy having a particular individual associated with a creative work givesmore meaning (more cohesion) to the work. Of course, a group of individualsmight work together, but there is something about the individual psychobiography(the individual's lived experience). It is not surprising that group lived experienceis more amorphous.
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:35:58 -0400
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groundbreaking	discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Mind in Society, 	Vygotsky's Paedology of 1931, and psychoanalysis)!
> From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> 
> Hi Francine,
> Your posting below presents many valid points and I agree that we "should
> not be intimidated by the existence of such controversies", as you wisely
> admonish. One factor that has helped me immensely in this controversy comes
> from the actual account of Vygotsky's lived experiences from many first
> hand witnesses.
> (Not all of these had to be translated from Russian or else I would be
> lost.)  Many of the theories from writings that are attributed to LSV had
> their
> seed form in activities he engaged in as a child and later as an
> adolescent; e.g .nightly family reading circles as a ZPD, acting out
> historical texts (thinking and speech activities, the troika, etc.). Could
> it be that his praxis came before his written theory in many aspects of his
> work?
> For me there is nothing more libelous than theoretical and scholarly
> orthodoxy that is void and detached from vital lived experience.
> 
> Just wondering,
> *Robert Lake*
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
> >
> > Comments from Francine Smolucha:
> > The Groundbreaking role that Mind in Society played in introducing
> > Vygotsky's writings on the zone of proximal development and therole of
> > children's play is not diminished by the debate over the exact authorship
> > of Tools and Symbols (Signs). There was a more thoroughtranslation of
> > Vygotsky's paper The Role of Play in Development publishedin 1967 in
> > English, but it is Mind in Society that reached many more readers.
> > Somehow the chapters from Tool and Symbol  published in Mind in Society
> > werenever of interest to me, as I amassed my own translations of Vygotsky's
> > writings.Since I did my own translations of the Russian texts for the last
> > three chapters in Mind in Society,I can say that overall the translations
> > in Mind in Society are reliable. Granted, therea few places were an
> > important line or words from the Russian text were omittedand perhaps a new
> > slightly expanded edition of Mind in Society will be forthcoming.
> > Freud's works appear in the Standard Edition which is the authoritative
> > source for themost serious of Freud scholars. The paperback translations of
> > Freud's books are the one'smost psychologists have read and even quote.
> > Vygotsky scholars will need to navigate betweenthe various translations and
> > controversies regarding his texts (just as Freud scholarsdo - for example
> > in German triebe means drive not instinct so it is not the death instinct
> > butthe death drive, i.e. the aggression drive directed toward the self or
> > others.)
> > The most advanced scholars should mentor people just entering the field
> > and make them aware of troublesome texts. However, readers of Vygotsky
> > should not be intimidated by the existenceof such controversies, but
> > instead take what inspiration they can and try to be precise when
> > citingVygotsky's writings (acknowledging controversy where it exists.)
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:45:42 -0700
> > > From: vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groundbreaking
> >      discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Mind in Society,
> >  Vygotsky's Paedology of 1931, and psychoanalysis)!
> > > To: the_yasya@yahoo.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > CC:
> > >
> > > Some points on Anton's points, trivial and more substantial:
> > >
> > > a) We know that the English manuscript produced by Luria has a
> > handwritten note, NOT in Luria's hand, which says "Check the Russian
> > original". Whoever wrote this note must have known of the existence of a
> > Russian original somewhere.
> > >
> > > b) Goldberg's account, written by an aging psychologist for aging
> > executives who want to cling to their powers of memory, is highly amusing,
> > but it is anecdotal. Even the wisest of brains will find that anecdotes are
> > not quite the same thing as textological evidence.
> > >
> > > c) I think that Anton's position depends on an unspoken assumption that
> > we would do well to make explicit. It is that Alexander Luria is not a
> > co-author of "Tool and Sign in Child Development". If Luria is recognized
> > as a co-author, then the manuscript which he gave to Mike in Moscow must be
> > recognized as at least partly authorial, that is, revised and approved
> > personally by an author. This would, incidentally, account for the
> > anachronisms that Anton has discovered in the text--like Vygotsky, Luria
> > continued to change his mind, and both authors may well have fiddled with
> > the manuscript accordingly.
> > >
> > > d) Take a look at p. 106 of your Vygotsky Reader (downloadable from
> > Andy's website, or directly from the University of Leiden). At the end of
> > the third paragraph, the authors promise a set of new investigations aimed
> > at demonstrating the specifically human in human intellect.
> > >
> > > If we follow the Russian version, that is exactly what we get. But if we
> > take the English version as the Ur-text, there is a HUGE jump cut: the
> > article appears to start al over again from the very beginning, with the
> > words "This article deals with two processes of vital psychological
> > importance".
> > >
> > > Of course, the discontinuity might indeed by authorial, and Goldberg
> > might have copied and pasted material to patch this discontinuity as well
> > as back-translated (although it is odd that he does not mention the fact in
> > his amusing account).
> > >
> > > But then why didn't Goldberg delete the material in the place that he
> > copied it from? If he is so concerned with producing a coherent text, why
> > does he allow verbatim repetition of this section later on in the text?
> > >
> > > e) I think Anton's explanation of the Vygotsky reference to the "chapter
> > on practical intelligence for America" is ingenious, and I certainly agree
> > that Vygotsky and Luria were trying to publish their material abroad
> > through many different avenues. The problem is that none of the articles
> > Anton mentions, and none that I am aware of, are about practical
> > intelligence, and that is precisely what Chapter One of Tool and Sign is
> > all about: "The problem of practical intelligence in animals and children".
> > So I think it's safe to assume that what is referred to in Vygotsky's
> > letter is indeed the first chapter of Tool and Sign.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 3/26/12, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groundbreaking
> > discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Mind in Society,
> > Vygotsky's Paedology of 1931, and psychoanalysis)!
> > > To: "larry smolucha" <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>, "Activity eXtended Mind
> > Culture" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Terrific questions, indeed!
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Question:
> > >
> > > "Luria's bibliography of Vygotsky's writings (published in Mind in
> > Society) was
> > > not mentioned in Anton's paper. Any particular reason why?"
> > >
> > >
> > > Answer:
> > > Primarily because the study focused on the most authentic or the most
> > reliable sources on Vygotsky,
> > > and Mind in Society (1978), Vygotsky's most famous book that he never
> > wrote, is definitely neither.
> > > Besides, the author of the study was simply oblivious of the fact that
> > this book contained
> > > yet another bibliography of Vygotsky's works.
> > >
> > > There is nothing interesting in this "Luria's bibliography", although it
> > might need somewhat closer examination.
> > > Anyway, from its looks, this is a(n uncredited) republication of  T.M.
> > Lifanova's (nee Shakhlevich) bibliography,
> > > one of the first in a row, the one that came out in 1974 in Russian
> > journal Voprosy psikhologii, and was later
> > > incorporated into the revised and substantially extended version that
> > was published in 1996 (available online,
> > > in Russian in Cyrillic characters --
> > http://www.voppsy.ru/journals_all/issues/1996/965/965137.htm,
> > > or  in Russian in Latin transliteration --
> > http://www.vigotski.net/lsv_biblio-1996,1999.pdf  ).
> > > This earlier Lifanova (Shakhlevich) bibliography was taken in
> > consideration
> > > in
> > > Anton's paper The Vygotsky That We (Do Not) Know, and --unlike in Mind
> > in Society --
> > > it is referred in the full version of this paper, please see:
> > >
> > > Yasnitsky, A. (2011). "I Wish You Knew From What Stray Matter...":
> > > Identifying the set of Vygotsky's major oeuvre and determining the
> > chronology of their composition.
> > > PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 1-52 (In Russian);
> > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a1/2011n4a1.pdf
> > >
> > > The reference in question is the one under #139:
> > > 139. Шахлевич, Т. М. (1974). Библиография трудов Л. С. Выготского.
> > > Вопросы психологии(3), 152―160.
> > >
> > > Still, fyi, the best (the fullest, the most precise, etc.) Russian
> > bibliography of Vygotsky's works is available on
> > > Russian wikipedia, here:
> > >
> > > http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Библиография_Выготского;
> > >
> > > (some isntructions on the use of this invaluable resource are available
> > here:
> > > http://psyhistorik.livejournal.com/75872.html )
> > >
> > > 2. Question:
> > > " Luria provided the rough translations for the chapters from Tool and
> > Symbol
> > > that were published as the first four chapters of Mind in Society, what
> > text was Luria working
> > > from?"
> > >
> > > Answer:
> > > God knows. Perhaps, nobody else. In other words, the text just
> > --voila!--appeared,
> > > and nobody knows where exactly it comes from. We might assume that there
> > was a
> > > prototypical Russian text that might have been translated into English
> > for a handbook
> > > to be published in 1930 in the US by Murchison, BUT:
> > > - the book came out, with a few chapters by Americans and foreigners, --
> > > no Vygotsky or Luria's chapter was among these
> > > - no traces of the manuscript or a translation of 1930s exists (or, at
> > least, is known to exist)
> > > - we have no evidence to safely claim that the English text that Luria
> > > provided as the rough translations for the chapters from Tool and Symbol
> > > AND that were published as the first four chapters of Mind in Society is
> > this very text of 1930, ON THE CONTRARY --
> > > - our analysis of the actual text demonstrates several ideas that could
> > not
> > > have appeared in Vygotsky's text as early as 1930, but could well have
> > > be formulated at a later time, say, not earlier than 1932
> > >
> > > 3. Question:
> > > "Did Luria have his own archival texts? "
> > >
> > > Answer: NO.
> > > Quote ( On Tool and Sign/Symbol):
> > > "The original Russian text [of Tool and Sign] was lost and only the
> > English translation remained,
> > > prepared for a conference in the United States [not quite so -- AY] but
> > never actually delivered.
> > > Forty years later, in the late sixties, the political climate thawed and
> > their early ideas were exonerated.
> > > It was then that Luria discovered, to [p. 99] his dismay, the loss of
> > the Russian original.
> > > Not one to by stymied by a challenge and always a practical man, he told
> > me to translate
> > > The Tool and the Symbol from English "back" into Russian and make it
> > sound like the original text.
> > > With a mixture of awe and amusement, I did just that, and our benigh
> > forgery was passed for the real thing.
> > > Today, it graces the opening volume of the collection of Vygotsky's
> > writings,
> > > without an explanation of what had actually happened."
> > >
> > > Source:
> > http://books.google.ca/books?id=9NEN80chkT8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=benign%20forgery&f=false
> > >
> > > Goldberg, E. (2005). The wisdom paradox: How your mind can grow stronger
> > as your brain grows older. New York: Gotham books.
> > > Pages 98-99
> > >
> > > Luckily for us, the researchers, but quite unfortunately for us the
> > readers, the editors manipulated with the text
> > > even more than usual and published several fragments of the text twice,
> > in different loci of the Russian edition.
> > >
> > > Anlysis of the structure of the outcome and the style and language of
> > these repeated text fragments--
> > >  --obviously identical, but
> > > not verbatim repetitions--confirms Goldberg's testimony and strongly
> > suggests that
> > > yet another (at least one) translator was employed to do the job. The
> > repeated texts have all traced of the same
> > > original, phrased differently by several (at least two) different
> > translators, each of which
> > > fairly consistently followed
> > > different, pretty idiosyncratic style of  translation. Discourse
> > analysis convincingly shows this.
> > >
> > > References:
> > >
> > > For discourse analysis of a repeated fragment in the Russian text see:
> > > Yasnitsky, A. (2011). "I Wish You Knew From What Stray Matter...":
> > > Identifying the set of Vygotsky's major oeuvre and determining the
> > chronology of their composition.
> > > PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 1-52 (In Russian)
> > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a1/2011n4a1.pdf
> > > Table 5, page 28
> > >
> > > For the representation of the structural features of the Russian/English
> > texts and nice pics for the repeated fragments see:
> > > Kellogg, D. & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). The differences between the Russian
> > and English texts of
> > > Tool and Symbol in Child Development. Supplementary and analytic
> > materials.
> > > PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 98-158
> > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a4/2011n4a4.pdf
> > > Figures 1 and 2, pp. 101 and 102 respectively; the rest might be of
> > interest, too.
> > >
> > > For a summary of Yasntisky's (2011 ) longer paper see:
> > > Yasnitsky, A. (2011). The Vygotsky That We (Do Not) Know:
> > > Vygotsky’s Main Works and the Chronology of their Composition. PsyAnima,
> > Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 53-61
> > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a1/2011n4a1.1.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > 4 Question:
> > > "how does this textual material  relate to the history
> > > of the translations of Tool and Sign on page 54 of Anton's paper?"
> > >
> > > Answer:
> > > I believe the above answers 2 & 3 are pretty explanatory, but please let
> > me know if any questions remain, or
> > > further questions, comments or suggestions emerge.
> > >
> > > 5. Question:
> > > "Does Anton know the titles of the three missing chapters from the
> > Pedalogy of the Adolescent (Chapters 13, 14, 15)
> > > from the Russian Collected Works? [In the Russian text chapter 12 is
> > followed by chapter 16.]"
> > >
> > > Answer: YES, he does.
> > > The titles are:
> > > Chapter 13: The choice of profession [Vybor professii] pp. 457-464
> > > Chapter 14: Social behaviour of the adolescent [Sotsial'noe povedenie
> > podrostka] pp. 464-471
> > > Chapter 15: Working [Alternatively: Working-class --AY] adolescent
> > [Rabochii podrostok]  pp. 471-481
> > >
> > > For the relative size of the chapters in Vygotsky's "Paedology of the
> > adolescent" [Pedologiia podrostka]  (1931)
> > > see:
> > > Yasnitsky, A. (2011). "I Wish You Knew From What Stray Matter...":
> > > Identifying the set of Vygotsky's major oeuvre and determining the
> > chronology of their composition.
> > > PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, 4(4), 1-52 (In Russian)
> > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a1/2011n4a1.pdf Scheme 1,
> > page 18
> > >
> > > 6. Question:
> > > "Is there any information in the Vygotsky archives about Vygotsky's
> > involvement in the Russian
> > > Psychoanalytic Society (co-founded by Sabina Speilrein)?"
> > >
> > > Answer: YES and NO.
> > > Yes - there is, no - not in the archives.
> > > A remark, though: Sabina S. returned to Russia from Switzerland/Austria
> > in 1923, and Russian Psychoanalytic Society
> > > had been founded a year before, in 1922, by Ermakov, Wulf, Kannabich,
> > and dozens of other enthusiasts
> > > (btw, Luria was not among them, he was in Kazan' back then, founding, in
> > turn, Kazan' Psychoanalytic Society, though).
> > >
> > > As to Vygotsky, here it is: he is mentioned among the reports of the
> > Russian Society as an occasional presenter in 1924 &1927
> > > (he talked twice -- on 4.12.1924 and on 10.3.1927 on the topics related
> > to the psychology of art). No other traces of
> > > Vygotsky among the activities of the Society has been found. After all,
> > it was only in 1930
> > > that Vygotsky  was listed as its member.
> > > I tend to think this membership, were it true, was pretty formal. Then,
> > in 1930 the Society ceased to exist,
> > > but definitely not for the reason it was not Marxist.
> > >
> > > These reports were authored by A.R. Luria, later - Vera Schmidt, and
> > published in Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse
> > > (and also in its mirror version that was published in English, too; I am
> > not very sure about this, though).
> > > For the translated Russian texts of these reports documenting the
> > activities of the Russian Psychoanalytic Society in 1922-1930 see:
> > >
> > > http://psyhistorik.livejournal.com/35949.html
> > >
> > >
> > > AY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> > > To: the_yasya@yahoo.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:31:24 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groudbreaking
> > discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Trotsky, Shmotsky,
> > and Vygotsky)!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In regard to Anton's paper The Vygotsky That We (Do Not) Know:
> > >
> > > Luria's bibliography of Vygotsky's writings (published in Mind in
> > Society) was
> > > not mentioned in Anton's paper. Any particular reason why?
> > >
> > >  Luria provided the rough translations for the chapters from Tool and
> > Symbol
> > > that were published as the first four chapters of Mind in Society, what
> > text was Luria working
> > > from? Did Luria have his own archival texts? And, how does this textual
> > material  relate to the history
> > > of the translations of Tool and Sign on page 54 of Anton's paper?
> > >
> > > Does Anton know the titles of the three missing chapters from the
> > Pedalogy of the Adolescent (Chapters 13, 14, 15)
> > > from the Russian Collected Works? [In the Russian text chapter 12 is
> > followed by chapter 16.]
> > >
> > > Is there any information in the Vygotsky archives about Vygotsky's
> > involvement in the Russian
> > > Psychoanalytic Society (co-founded by Sabina Speilrein)? Speilrein was a
> > notable psychoanalyst
> > > who introduced the concept of the so-called death instinct (aggression
> > toward self or others).
> > > She was also Jung's first analysand and allegedly his lover (Madame X in
> > his letters to Freud).
> > > Speilrein was also Piaget's analyst. Both Vygotsky and Luria were
> > members of the Russian
> > > Psychoanalytic Society until it had to be disbanded (because it was not
> > Marxist).
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:24:56 -0700
> > > > From: the_yasya@yahoo.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Special issue on Vygotsky's legacy: groudbreaking
> >    discoveries in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (Trotsky,
> >  Shmotsky, and Vygotsky)!
> > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >
> > > > Steve, thank you for you Trostkian update!
> > > >
> > > > I am afraid, though, this input leads us quite away from the main
> > topic that we attempt to discuss, namely:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > recent groundbreaking textological and historiographic research that
> > demonstrates that our view on what we believed were Vygotsky's main texts
> > > >
> > > > was largely distorted and -- due to numerous falsifications,
> > manipulations, and other damage done to Vygotsky's discourse --
> > > >
> > > > still much work needs to be done. Luckily, a few important
> > contribution have already been made and clarify the picture to some extent:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus, keeping this focus of our current discussion in mind, I believe
> > I need to respond to several questions of yours that I can parse in your
> > message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. A remark. I might well agree with you that Stalin, like Hitler --
> > and quite unlike Lenin or Trotsky -- was a reincarnation of Darth Vader,
> > or, at least, Lord Voldemort,
> > > > but please keep it in mind that such Manichean perspective on the
> > history of Soviet science does not quite allow us understand why quite a
> > few of American scholars were so
> > > > fascinated with "Stalinist" Soviet science of 1930s --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > see, e.g.: Peter J. Kuznick (1987). Beyond the laboratory: scientists
> > as political activists in 1930s
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://books.google.ca/books?id=pQxy2PRHWrwC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > or  how come the "oppressed science" of zee ruskies was able to scare
> > all of us out of ours witts back in the 1950s with the launch of 'sputnik'
> > in 1957 and, then Gagarin in 1961.
> > > >
> > > > For the not so simple and truly exciting history of the inseparable
> > union between the science and the party-state apparatus in the Soviet Union
> > from mid-1920s onwards see. e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > Krementsov, N. (1997). Stalinist Science. Princeton
> > > >
> > > > Stalinist Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997)
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://books.google.ca/books?id=8Nl_FUgFykQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> > > >
> > > > 2. Another remark. Yep, Vygotsky did refer to Trotsky's Utopian
> > visions of the superman (Uebermensch, if you wish) of the inevitable
> > Communist future, in his (i.e. Vygotsky's)
> > > > three books of mid-1920s, and, generally,seems to have been charmed by
> > the "prophet armed/unarmed/outcast".
> > > > However, I do not think there is anything distinctly Marxist in this
> > variation of Uebermensch,
> > > > and the idea of a "new man" is very much ingrained into the entire
> > construct of Western civilization and from time to time reoccurs in the
> > history of humanity here and there.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Now, to question. It seems that Trotsky's "Literature and
> > revolution" came out in the original in 1923, and then, second, augmented
> > edition - in 1924.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Question: "
> > > > Marxists tend to be very careful about claiming they have a "new"
> > idea.  Marx and Engels were meticulous about this.  Vygotsky was like that
> > too, yes? "
> > > > Answer: yes and no, that depends. In certain instances Vygotsky does
> > refer to his predecessors, in some instances -- he pretty charmingly
> > forgets to do so.
> > > > Pretty messy and unorganized author, I should say.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Phrase: "Vygotsky, who himself contributed to this revolution in
> > substantial ways, despite the rising Stalinist counter-revolution that
> > eventually buried Vygotsky's writings"
> > > > Comments:
> > > > * Vygotsky did contribute to the social and scientific life of the
> > country in many, but not necessarily in substantial ways,
> > > > * he did so in full accordance with all turns, ups and downs of the
> > national policy and social processes throughout 1920s-1930s,
> > > > * contributed notably to Stalinist counter-revolution during and after
> > the Great Break and Cultural Revoltion of 1929-1932 as well as to the
> > movements of the NEP period of 1920s
> > > > * and, finally, was buried not by Stalinist oppressive apparatus, but
> > by his allegedly most devoted students and followers :))
> > > >
> > > > This is why much of the published legacy of Vygotsky, especially, the
> > Soviet six-volume collection of his works of 1982-1984, is in such bad
> > shape.
> > > For discussion and materials please see:
> > > >
> > > > Yasnitsky, A.
> > > > The Vygotsky That We (Do Not) Know: Vygotsky’s Main Works and the
> > Chronology of their Composition
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a1/2011n4a1.1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Kellogg, D.
> > > > Which is (More) Original, and Does Either Version Really Matter?
> > > > (A comment on A. Yasnitsky’s “The Vygotsky That We (Do Not) Know:
> > Vygotsky’s Main Works and the Chronology of their Composition”)
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a2/2011n4a2.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Kellogg, D.
> > > > Untangling a genetic root of Thinking and Speech:
> > > > Towards a textology of Tool and Sign in Child Development
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a3/2011n4a3.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Kellogg, D. & Yasnitsky, A.
> > > > The differences between the Russian and English texts of Tool and
> > Symbol in Child Development. Supplementary and analytic materials
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a4/2011n4a4.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Mecacci, L. & Yasnitsky, A.
> > > > Editorial Changes in the Three Russian Editions of Vygotsky's
> > "Thinking and Speech" (1934, 1956, 1982): Towards Authoritative and
> > Ultimate English Translation of the Book
> > > > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/2011n4a5/2011n4a5.pdf
> > > >
> > >
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> *Assistant Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-5125
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460
> 
>  *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> midwife.*
> *-*John Dewey.
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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