>If Luria and Vygotsky were wright, the use of words by speach makes the
>thinking process radically different. And I deduce from this that
>thinking in english is something very different than thinking in
>portuguese, or russian or spanish etc
It depends on what we mean by language. If referring to
syntactical-phonological differences, they exist but their influence need
not be, and probably isn't, "very" big. If we speak of the lexical and
sociocultural associations, then the difference can be very large, and so
different cultural groups--whether speaking different languages or the
"same" language--may think very differently.
-----------
This exchange is really interesting to me. In pursuing my doctorate,
I changed disciplines, from second language acquisition (Spanish), to
Communication. My work with SLA, and the sociolinguistics of the
US-Mexico border, led me to question the role of decontextualized language
instruction, i.e. "foreign" language classes, or language learning itself
as a vehicle for developing understanding between language/culture groups.
Since coming to UCSD, and particularly, LCHC, I've found new means for
trying to understand how people can share meaning in spite of their
different relations to the linguistic tools they are using. It's so much
easier to account for discoordinations or breakdowns in communication,
than to account for how people negotiate their different relations to
language and other tools, and achieve or approximate understanding, in
spite of those differences. We can teach or learn second languages or
specialized languages (eg., Bakhtin's social languages), but
access to that "play ground" of language seems to require shared history
in shared contexts, not to mention the goodwill of the interlocutors.
Charles' comment resonates with my perceptions about the roles of
languages in that bilingual discussion list in which we discussed
Ferreiro's piece (some of her students in Mexico were participating.)
The 5tadim list grew out of the interest of people in Mexico and
California to continue discussions about socio-cultural-historical
theories of development that had started at a conference in Queretaro.
A number of participants, both in Mexico and California, were working
with, or interested in the Fifth Dimension model learning settings (hence,
5tadim or Quinta Dimension).
The organizers announced a bilingual list, in which contributions in
Spanish OR English were welcome. The list was originally organized around
shared readings (e.g. Cole 1996, Vygotsky 1962, 1986, Castorino et al).
While the goal was to have shared texts, in Spanish and English, getting
them proved to be a challenge. Still, over 100 people joined the
discussion, which was most intense between spring 1997 and fall 1998.
Negotiating a bilingual discussion in which monolinguals (English and
Spanish) were welcome was an interesting challenge. The national language
that dominated on the list was Spanish. While the content of the
discussions was driven by the shared (sometimes) texts, reflection on
language use on the list also emerged, especially around the issue of
"Spanglish" or blends of Spanish and English, but also around the accents
and other diacritics which translated electronically into gibberish.
There were occasional calls for translations, into both Spanish and
English, and for a while, Spanish messages followed by English
translations became the norm.
While the participants' different relations to the national languages
actually became explicit at times, as in expressions of thanks from
Mexican participants for some very interesting attempts by US
participants to use Spanish, there were also implicit differences in
relations to the tools of communication that were not related to national
language, but to academic discipline. For example, some participants were
linguists and felt comfortable "playing" with language, experimenting with
spellings and punctuation, or creating bilingual neologisms, e.g.,
espangles. This was not appreciated by other participants.
A more marked difference in relation to the linguistic tools being used,
both in Spanish and English, was associated with the discipline of
Psychology. A shared vocabulary which crossed English and Spanish did a
lot of work to exclude those from other disciplines, some of whom
expressed their inhibitions about not being fluent in that vocabulary as
they apologized for periods of silence.
Honorine Nocon,
UCSD/LCHC