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

Re: [xmca] concepts

Certainly each of these claims is making a unique point, Martin, but I don't believe Vygotsky is using the various words that come up in each contrast in a unique way. I think the sense/reference distinction is being mentioned under several names. I would just relax if you can't find a unqiue meaning for each term. I don't think Vygotsky worked like that.


Martin Packer wrote:
Andy, your comment about chapter 4 made me realize that chapter 3 also introduces this distinction, and of course there's a distinction in chapter 2 that's so obvious that I failed to remember it! So let me try again...

In *each* of the chapters of T&S, including the preface, LSV introduces a distinction that he insists is important if we are to correctly understand how speech has psychological consequences:

Introduction (1934?): words, and the meanings of words “word meanings [значения слов] develop in children”

Chapter 1 (1933-34): Inner aspect of the word [внутренней стороне слова]
“what is such unit, which cannot be further resolved and in which the properties are inherently contained in verbal thinking as whole? To us it seems that this unit can be found in the internal aspect of the word [внутренней стороне слова], in its meaning [значении.].”
	von Humboldt?

Chapter 2 (1932): external speech [речи внешней] and inner speech [речи внутренней]

“in egocentric speech we are inclined to see a transitional stage in the development of speech, from external to internal.”
[ в эгоцентрической речи мы склонны видеть переходную стадию в развитии речи от внешней к внутренней.]

Chapter 3 (1932?): external structure of word-thing [чисто внешней структурой вещь-слово], and internal relationship sign-meaning [внутренним отношением знак-значение].

“the child in this period seizes the purely external structure of the word-thing rather than the inner relationship of sign-meaning.” [что ребенок в эту пору овладевает скорее чисто внешней структурой вещь-слово, чем внутренним отношением знак-значение.]

Chapter 4 (1929): this chapter was written before chapters 2 and 3, but it also addresses the distinctions made in those chapters: external and internal speech, and external and internal structure:

“This methodological path consists in the need to find the middle ring, the chain link which connects the processes of external and inner speech”
[Этот методический путь заключается в необходимости найти среднее звено, соединяющее процессы внешней и внутренней речи, звено, которое являлось бы переходным между одними и другими процессами]

“the child, as we saw, grasps the external structure earlier than the internal one; the child seizes the external structure: word-thing, which only later becomes a symbolic structure.” [ребенок, как мы видели, раньше овладевает внешней структурой, чем внутренней. Он овладевает внешней структурой: слово — вещь, которая уже после становится структурой символической.]

The central point of chapter 4, however, is that there is a distinction between two lines of development, the biological [биологического]and the social-historical [общественно-исторический].

Chapter 5 (1931): sense [значение] and reference [предметную отнесенность]

“The first thing that we can learn from contemporary linguistics is that, according to Peterson, it is essential to distinguish between the meaning of a word or expression and its objective reference, i.e. the objects which this word or expression indicates.” [Первое, что мы узнаем из современного языкознания, это то, что необходимо отличать, по выражению Петерсона, значение слова или выражения от предметного отнесения, т.е. от тех предметов, на которые данное слово или выражение указывает.]

“So contemporary linguistics does make a distinction between the meaning and the objective reference of words.” [Таким образом, современное языкознание различает значение и предметную отнесенность слова]
	Gottlob Frege?
	Edmund Husserl?

Chapter 6 (1934): appearance (external manifestation) [внешнем проявлении] and essence [сущность] of an object

“The essence of any scientific concept was defined profoundly by Marx in his proposition that ‘If the form of things and their essence directly coincided, then any science would be unnecessary.’ In this lies the essence of the scientific concept. It would be superfluous if it reflected its object in its external manifestation as the empirical concept does. Therefore the scientific concept necessarily assumes a relation to the object possible only in the concept”

[Сущность всякого научного понятия глубочайшим образом определена Марксом в его положении: ≪Если бы форма проявления и сущность вещей непосредственно совпадали, то всякая наука была бы излишней≫. В этом суть научного понятия. Оно было бы излишне, если бы оно отражало объект в его внешнем проявлении как эмпирическое понятие.]

Chapter 7: (1933-34):  sense [смыслом ] and signification [значением]

“The first of these is the predominant sense of the word over its meaning in speech inner. Paulhan rendered a great service to the psychological analysis of speech by introducing the distinction between the sense of the word and its meaning.” [Мы могли в наших исследованиях установить три такие основные особенности, внутренне связанные между собой и образующие своеобразие смысловой стороны внутренней речи. Полан оказал большую услугу психологическому анализу речи тем, что ввел различие между смыслом слова и его значением.]__________________________________________
xmca mailing list

*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org

xmca mailing list