Diane has been
>re-reading Vyg's notions of "tool" and "sign" and their distinctions
>(language and artifacts?)
While the dictionary would probably approve this linking of signs with
language and tools with artifacts, Mike Cole has used "artifacts" for quite
some time as a covering term for BOTH kinds of mediators. I guess one could
use the academic way of crediting him with the "ownership" of *this*
specific crafted meaning of the word by citing *Cultural Psychology* --
although there, of course, Mike in his turn credits Wartofsky
(1973)(*Models*).
It is clearly motivated to provide the Vygotskian sign-tool distinction
with a balancing integration -- just look at the discussions we keep having
about the signifying aspects of tools and vice versa, as soon as the
distinction comes up.
And even if the choice of "artifact" to do the job may be a bit confusing,
I quite like it... It somehow gives a lot more concretion to an abstract
idea than "mediator" would have done on its own? It also takes a stand on
the nature of language (and other semiotic means) as something *made* (no
nature-given eternal).
Eva
eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se