Re: [xmca] review of Italian translation of Thinking and Speech: In defence of van der Veer and Mecacci

It is clear that, collectively, we need all the help we can get, Anton.
Lets see if something we can collectively consider "good" can come out of
this
archeological interrogation of the past, and concurrent interrogation of our
current
condition and the future.
mike

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Sasha,
>
> thanks for the email, let's hope we'll hear back from Dr. Mecacci!
>
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> RE > I have not been able to find Mecacci's email so far, but perhaps you
> > could enlighten us
> > on the major, meaning-shifting differences between the 1934 and 1982
> > Russian editions.
>
> I would prefer not to do this now, so casually. I believe this issue does
> deserve a special in-depth investigation and I have always wanted somebody
> to do this comparison of Vygotsky's Russian originals and their Soviet
> "translation" in the collected works edition of 1982-84 (in case of
> Myshlenie i rech' this such "translation" took place in the edition of
> 1956). Or at least to do this myself in nobody volunteers to do so.
>
> Luckily, we know about several attemtps at comparing the original and the
> later versions of Russian texts of Vygotsky, most notably:
>
> - the work on Thinking and speech that, according to van der Veer, was
> done by Mecacci; furthermore, I just would like to emphasize the remark of
> Dr. Mecacci in his response to van der Veer's review: "In order to
> summarize the results of the comparison among the 1934,1956 and 1982
> Russian versions of Vygotsky's masterpiece, a paper is in preparation for
> a larger and English reading audience" (see p. 84 of the journal
> publication or p. 10 of the pdf file here:
>
> https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/10391/1/7_703_090.pdf
> or as an attachement to the message [xmca] review of Italian translation
> of Thinking and Speech by Peter Smagorinsky);
>
> - van der Veer and Valsiner's comparison of the original English (sic!)
> and the available published Russian versions of Vygotsky and Luria's Tool
> and symbol in child development (see their comments in Vygotsky reader,
> Blackwell, 1994)
>
> - on several occasions Dr. Veresov mentioned the list of discrepencies
> between the editions that he had compiled; specifically, see his
> retranslation of Vygotsky's Consciousness as a problem in the psychology
> of behaviour in his monograph of 1999)
>
> - P. Tulviste. Shetistomnoe izdanie trudov Vygotksogo [Six-volume
> collection of Vygotsky's works], 1987, Voprosy psikhologii (in Russian):
> http://www.voppsy.ru/issues/1987/872/872170.htm
>
> - finally, Brushlinskii, A. V (1996). Pervye utochneniya tekstov L.S.
> Vygotskogo [First clarifications of L.S. Vygotsky's texts] (in Russian).
> Psikhologicheskij zhurnal, 3, 19-25
>
> - else?
>
> In any case, as Stanislaw Jerzy Lec put it, don't expect to much of the
> end of the world :) -- meaning in this case that as a result of such
> comparison Vygotsky will still remain Vygotsky--and won't become, say,
> Ivanov-Smolenskii :)--although we will better understand how much
> distorted his works and thoughts were at times, -- and unfortunately, in
> many respects still are...
>
> RE > I am also curious about your view on the translation of Myshlenie as
> > Thinking rather than
> > Thought. Seems like it could to either way and a case could be made for
> > the noun form rather than the verb. Its an issue we discussed a lot in
> > the mid 1990's with no clear resolution.
>
> Here is just one reason why I, as a philologist and a Russian
> native-speaker, would vote for "thinking" rather than "thought".
> Grammatically, neither Russian "myshlenie" nor English "thinking" can not
> be countable, whereas "thought" can be (cf:
> http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl?search_word=thinking vs
> http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl?search_word=thought).
> Here is another reason: both terms have the suffixes that may have the
> meaning of a[n abstract] process - "-enie" and "-ing".
>
>
>
> Francine,
>
> I believe you are raising very good points that would make a lot of sense
> for the situation of "normal science" (allusion to Thomas Kuhn is
> unintended) as opposed to the totalitarian, the "oppresed science" (term
> was coined by the late B.G. Yaroshevskii). In the case of Vygotsky's
> discourse we are not talking--in somewhat abstract terms--about the
> plurality of opinions and interpretations and multiplicity of de- and
> re-constructions of the text, but rather about blatant--deliberate or
> subconsious--corruptions of the text as a result of editorial censorship.
>
> For an example of what I mean please see van der Veer's analysis of the
> translation of the concluding paragraph of Vygotsky's Myshlenie i rech' in
> Kozulin's translation, here:
>
> https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/10384/1/7_703_061.pdf
> (my gratitude to David Kellog for the reference).
>
> One might quite correctly point out that in this text van der Veer is
> talking about the differences in translations but not about the
> differences in different versions of the Russian text. I would agree with
> that, but yet remark that the quotes that van der Veer has put in his
> translation can be found in the 1934 edition of the text and are absent
> from the 1956 and all subsequent Russian editions of Vygotsky's text.
> Ironically, in this case this appears to be a quote from Marx, that,
> according to the later edits of the text, turned out into Vygotsky's own
> words. Quite a difference, I would say...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > thanks Sasha.
> > This thread is getting really interesting! So many different kinds of
> > expertise really helps and the international confusions over basic facts
> > (and intra national in Russia!!) could make a fascinating history of
> > science
> > article all by itself.
> >
> > I will forward relevant message to Luciano to see what he has to say.
> > mike
> >
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Alexander Surmava <monada@netvox.ru>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Recently Lucciano Mecacci had this E-mail: meca@psico.unifi.it
> > > Sasha
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Mike Cole
> > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:16 PM
> > > To: Anton Yasnitsky
> > > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] review of Italian translation of Thinking and
> > Speech:
> > > In
> > > defence of van der Veer and Mecacci
> > >
> > > Anton--
> > >
> > > I have not been able to find Mecacci's email so far, but perhaps you
> > could
> > > enlighten us
> > > on the major, meaning-shifting differences between the 1934 and 1982
> > > Russian
> > > editions.
> > >
> > > I am also curious about your view on the translation of Myshlenie as
> > > Thinking rather than
> > > Thought. Seems like it could to either way and a case could be made
> > for the
> > > noun form
> > > rather than the verb. Its an issue we discussed a lot in the mid
> > 1990's
> > > with
> > > no clear
> > > resolution.
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/30/08, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM, David Kellogg
> > > > > <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I think what the review says about the Italian translation is
> > simply
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I think what this comment says about van der Veer's review is simply
> > > > wrong. I feel it is my sad duty to correct this misrepresentation of
> > the
> > > > case and, specifically, address several dubious or even totally
> > false
> > > > statements.
> > > >
> > > > 1. > > Kozulin's (re-)translation into English is based on the 1934
> > > > > edition, not the later editions.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. Kozulin did say that "this new translation is based on the
> > 1934
> > > > edition of Myshlenie i rech', etc", but perhaps made realy bad use
> > of
> > > this
> > > > edition. Thus, on the same page adds that "substantial portions of
> > the
> > > > 1962 translation made by the late Eugenie Hanfmann and Gertrude
> > Vakar
> > > have
> > > > been retained" (Kozulin, 1986, p. lvi), which, to me, makes the
> > > > translation quite unreliable. Finally, comparison of the texts shows
> > that
> > > > Kozulin's text is at times quite different from Vygotsky's 1934 text
> > (I
> > > do
> > > > have a copy of this 1934 text and did compare the two).
> > > >
> > > > 2. > > It's also quite contradictory and unconvincing in other
> > ways. For
> > > > > example, it claims that Piaget was probably familiar with
> > Vygotsky's
> > > > work
> > > > > simply because Vygotsky had written a preface to his work.
> > > > ...
> > > > > > There's a language barrier here that we are still up against;
> > as far
> > > > > as we know, Piaget did not read Russian well (I read somewhere
> > that
> > > > Piaget's copy
> > > > > > of the 1934 edition of "Thinking and Speech" was apparently
> > unread
> > > > > when he
> > > > > > died). Yes, he corresponded with Luria and even received letters
> > from
> > > > > > Vygotsky, but they were probably in French. No English or French
> > > > > translation
> > > > > > of "Thinking and Speech" existed.
> > > >
> > > > Generally, interrelations between Piaget and Vygotsky is a fairly
> > obscure
> > > > topic and a recent article by Susan Pass (2007) unfortunately does
> > not
> > > > clarify the issue at all. For this reason, I suggest that we first
> > need
> > > to
> > > > have a look at "convincing argumentation" by Mecacci. What van der
> > Veer
> > > > says is that "Meccacci convincingly argues that this statement is
> > wholly
> > > > unlikely in view of the fact that, among other things, a) Piaget
> > > > corresponded regularly with Vygotsky's close collaborator Luria
> > since the
> > > > early nineteen-thirties, and b) Piaget wrote himself a foreword for
> > the
> > > > Soviet edition of two of his books, which also included a lengthy
> > > critical
> > > > introduction by Vygotsky".
> > > >
> > > > According to van der Veer, Mecacci discusses "Piaget's claim that he
> > had
> > > > not acquainted himself with Vygotsky's critique until 1962" but not
> > the
> > > > availablity of translation of Vygotsky's book. Thus, I personally
> > doubt
> > > > that the language of correspondence between Luria and, possibly,
> > Vygotsky
> > > > with Piaget has anything to do with Piaget's possibly being
> > acquainted
> > > > with Vygotsky's critique. For instance, as we now know, in 1935-36
> > Luria
> > > > was preparing a memorial volume for the late Vygotsky, and Piaget
> > was one
> > > > of those who agreed to contribute (King & Wertheimer, 2005,
> > 270-279). In
> > > > his letter to Luria, Piaget wrote (in my second-hand translation
> > from
> > > > Russian): "Let me tell you how deeply I am saddened by the [new of
> > the]
> > > > death of Vygotsky about whom you told me so much and who--I
> > know--takes
> > > > such a [prominent] place in psychology", etc. (Vygodskaya &
> > Lifanova,
> > > > 1996, 331). This is all hypothetical, and we do not have a statement
> > by
> > > > Piaget that he knew of Vygotsky's criticism of his work, but I
> > believe it
> > > > is highly unlikely that Piaget who, according to his letter, was
> > quite
> > > > well familiar with Vygotsky's work, was not aware of his critique of
> > his
> > > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, my point is that van der Veer is not THAT "contradictory and
> > > > unconvincing" is it may seem to somebody.
> > > >
> > > > 3. > > What is written about the Russian editor is very
> > contradictory.
> > > On
> > > > > the one
> > > > > > hand, we are told he was responsible for distortions of the
> > text. How
> > > > > could
> > > > > > we know, unless we had access to some ur-text BEFORE the 1934
> > > edition?
> > > > > As
> > > > > > far as I know, no such text exists.
> > > >
> > > > Answer: from the editor himself.
> > > > Kolbanovsky, in his Editor's preface (1934) to the first publication
> > of
> > > > Myshlenie i rech' on different occasions remarks that the work of
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > can not without reasonable doubt be regarded as "the expression of
> > > > Marxist-Leninist theory in development of the problem of thinking
> > and
> > > > speech" (p. iv), and that "sometimes, in critical and experimental
> > > studies
> > > > by Vygotsky, particularly in his early works, digressions from
> > > > consistently materialist perspective, some infatuations
> > [uvlecheniya] and
> > > > mistakes occur" (p. v). Then, Kolbanovsky concludes that he
> > attempted to
> > > > preserve the word of Vygotsky as is and made only the "most
> > necessary
> > > > corrections".
> > > >
> > > > Back to van der Veer's review, the author states that "Kolbanovsky
> > > changed
> > > > some of the wordings to make the book more palatable for the
> > ideological
> > > > leaders". This is highly hypothetical and conjectural, indeed, yet
> > most
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri May 30 21:18 PDT 2008