[xmca] Re: One more example: errors in translation/interpretation

Thanks for the additional identification of translation errors, Anna.
mike

On 3/24/08, Stetsenko, Anna <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> One more example, and a very dramatic one at that, is the direct (not
> subtle) mistake in the translation of the very last (!!), crowining sentence
> in the "Crisis" (this could have played a role in misinterpretation too).
>
> In the last sentence, accroding to translation, Vygotsky states while
> speaking about psychology in the future society:
>
> "There is NO NECESSITY for this psychology to correspond as little to the
> present one as -- in the worlds of Spinoza [1677/1955,p. 61] -- the
> constellation Dog corresponds to a dog, a barking animal" (v. 3, p. 343).
>
> However, the meaning of Vygotsky's words is exactly the opposite:
> he says: "Nuzhdi net, chto eta psihologija..." which means that "THERE IS
> NO TROUBLE in that this psychology will correspond as little to the present
> one as .... the constellation Dog corresponds to a dog, a barking animal"
>
> Because the word "nuzhda" can mean 'necessity' indeed but also
> means 'trouble, need', the sentence is ambiguous but of course not if one
> understands the context.
>
> So, instead of saying that future psychology will not need to be different
> from the present one, Vygotsky states that it will be indeed drastically
> different -- as 'similar' to it as the stars constellation is similar to the
> real dog.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Anna
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon 3/24/2008 3:08 PM
> To: Stetsenko, Anna
> Cc: packer@duq.edu; arievitch@mail.csi.cuny.edu
> Subject: Re: errors in translation/interpretation
>
>
>
>
> On 3/24/08, Stetsenko, Anna <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike and Martin, here is the long promised note on
> mistranslation (I don't mind if you share this with xmca participants):
>
>
>
> Martin quotes the following sentence from Vygotsky's 'The Crisis',
> (Vol. 3, p. 301): "Nobody contests that the general psychology will not be a
> third psychology added to the two struggling parties, but one of them."
>
>
>
> A substantial part of Martin's paper is based in this arguement --
> that psychology will have to take the form of one of the two presently (in
> Vygotsky's times) exisiting ones.
>
>
>
> However, the meaning of what Vygotsky is saying and what his
> 'Crisis' calls for is the opposite. In the original (Sobranie Sochinenij,
> v.1, p. 381) the text goes as follows: "Nikto ne sporit o tom, chto
> sozdanie obshej psihologii yavitsja ne tretjej psihologiej k dvum
> borjushimsja, a odnoj iz dvuh." The meaningful translation should be
> something like: "Nobody [in the competing camps in the discussion] argues
> that the general psychology will not be a third psychology to the two
> struggling ones, but one of them."
>
>
>
> From the context of the preceding discussion, it is rather clear
> that Vygotsky means than noone among the participants in the ongoing
> discussions, the ones he critiques (e.g., Kornilov), even comes to realize
> that there is a need for a third psychology. In the paragraph that this
> sentese comes in, Vygotsky makes two statements: 1) he asserts that there
> presently (in his time) exist just two forms/types of psychology and not
> multitudes of psychologies (with these two exisiting psychologies subsuming
> all other forms in them, all the seeming diversity of 'psychologies'
> notwithstanding). Vygotsky states that this point has been well understood
> and noone argues against this (he does not argue against this himself) and
> 2) there presently is a discussion about ONLY these two forms of psychology
> and noone seems to realize that the general psychology will not be one of
> the two existing forms but soemthing different.
>
>
>
> The text -- and the translator's mistake -- is rather subtle but
> the overall context makes clear that Vygotsky is arguing for a radically new
> approach and new psychology that cannot be reduced to either one of the
> exisiting forms. In this, he goes against the prevailing views by his
> contemporaries none of whom came to realize this important point.
>
>
>
> regrads and see you at AERA,
>
> Anna
>
> ps. I am cc-ing this to Igor because he noticed several other
> errors...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Mar 24 13:26 PDT 2008