[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Grunting and Grabbing

David. Below in red my translations on the fly. Anton or NAtaliia, or ......
can correct my interpretatiion. If possible I will include quote from
English translation of 1930  or so translation in j of genetic psych of this

> At the time I said it was said quite clearly at the beginning of Chapter
> Seven, but I couldn't remember exactly where. Last night I sat down with the
> Minick version of the chapter and to my horror I couldn't find it anywhere.
> Here's the problem, on p. 249:
> "...(W)e must now analyze not the development of meanings and their
> structure but the process through which meanings function in the living
> process of verbal thinking. If we succeed in this, we will have shown that
> with each stage in development there exists not only a specific structure of
> verbal meaning, but a special relationship between thinking and speech that
> defines this structure (sic). F  wiunctional problems are resolved most
> easiyl when we are studying the higher, developed forms of some activity,
> where the whole complexity of the functional structure appears in a
> well-articulated, mature form. Therefore, we will consider issues of
> development only briefly (sic), turning then to the study of the
> relationships of thought to word int he development of consciousness (sic)."
> The last sentence makes no sense to me. Here's the Russian:
> "Поэтому оставим на некоторое время в стороне вопросы развития и
> обратимся к изучению отношений мысли и слова в развитом сознании."
Therefore we will put aside for a little timem the emphasis (on the side of)
questions of development and tun to the relation of thought and word in the
development of consciousness

> I gather this means something like, "Therefore we will put issues of
> development to one side for a moment and turn to the study of the
> relationship of thought to word in a developed (i.e. a mature--DK)
> consciousness."
> In some ways the SECOND sentence is even more puzzling. Here's the Russian:
> "Если мы сумеем это сделать, мы тем самым сумеем показать, что на каждой
> ступени развития существует не только своя особенная структура словесного
> значения, но также определяемое этой структурой свое особое отношение между
> мышлением и речью."
>   If we are able to do that, we will also be abel to show that at every
> stage of development there exists not only its own unique structure of word
> meaning but also a defined structure of (the) between thought and language
> which is defined by that structure.
> And this I gather means something like: "If we know how to do this, we will
> also know how to show that at each step of development there is not only a
> special structure of verbal meaning but also, DETERMINED BY THIS STRUCTURE
> (my emphasis, DK), a special relationship between thinking and speech."
> There you have it. For Minick's Vygotsky, the relationship defines the
> structure ("a special relationship between thinking and speech that defines
> this structure") while for Seve's, and Meccaci's Vygotsky it's precisely the
> other way around, the structure defines the relationships between thinking
> and speech that are possible.
> I think that a vulgar "Marxist" interpretation would support Minick: after
> all, man's being determines his consciousness, and it is the relations of
> production which determine the structures of production. But I also think
> that this ignores precisely what Minick leaves out at the end of the
> paragraph, which is precisely what Vygotsky is doing in this chapter which
> is different from previous chapters.
> Vygotsky is leaving aside for the moment how the structure developed, where
> the relations of thinking and speech were indeed decisive and instead
> discussing how the structure functions, and here, in fact, it is the
> structure which determines the possible relations of thinking to speech
> rather than the other way around.
> In the ONTOGENETIC development of grunting and grabbing, it is indeed the
> relationships between indicative meaning and the indicated objects which
> determines the resultant structure of grunting and grabbing. But in the
> MICROGENETIC unfolding of an actual act of grunting and grabbing, it's just
> the other way around; when I lack the structure vocabulary and
> grammar then I can only grunt and grab.
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list