Re: [xmca] Translations: just quit using and referring to Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1986)!!

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

A coupla remarks.


FIRST.

 
RE David Kellogg wrote:
....You yourself have said you did not want
to use the MIT press version anymore. In their latest article on what
needs to be done in English, van der Veer and Yasnitsky have called the
Minick translation is "unusable". Meccaci is the best translation we have (according to van
der Veer). It's the ONLY translation of the original 1934 edition, you
know; ALL the others to date go back to 1956

If only I were to speak on behalf of  van der Veer and Yasnitsky (just in case, the ref is van der Veer, R. & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky in English: What still needs to be done [html && pdf]. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science; DOI: 10.1007/s12124-011-9172-9
 ; the full text free of charge as pdf or html is here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/278j5025767m2263/ ), I would simply say:

Hey, guys! Please, could you quit referring to the outdated and essentially false editions of: 
(a) Vygotsky (1962). Thought and Language and its derivative
(b) Vygotsky (1986). Thought and Language,
and, finally,
(c) Vygotsky (1978). Mind in Society 

Vygotsky *never* wrote *none* of these books! All of these were quite good back then and very much instrumental to where we are now (and many thanks to Mike Cole, Vera John-Steiner and their teams, and many others who made these editions possible back then), and are totally useless now. So, again, just *don't use them*!

INSTEAD, for instance, for Thinking and Speech (also notoriously known as Thought and Language, 1939, 1962, 1986), just use another translation, quite imperfect, but not quite unusable and definitely the best we have in English:

** Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.), pp. 39-285

SECOND. 
As to David's remark that the Italian version of the text is the only one done from the 1934 original, -- I would not be so sure about that. Thus, e.g., long ago van der Veer mentioned "excellent translations" into German (1964) and Danish (1982); see p. 177 here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23054700/Thought-and-Language-Lev-S-Vygotsky-(newly-revised-translated . None of the languages are really among my strengths, but anybody interested is welcome to verify the van der Veer's claim.

THIRD.

 
RE Andy Blunden wrote:
...  
"category" sometimes means "kategoria" ...
 

No, Andy. "Category" *always* means "kategoriia". And vice versa. But certainly not "collision" :). Feel free to verify this in any English-Russian-English (or any other)
dictionary 
 available on the surface of the Earth.


Cheers,
Anton


________________________________
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
To: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
Cc: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:23:40 AM
Subject: [xmca] Translations


 David, your project of tracking the various translations is valuable in
itself. The work of a great and subtle writer like Vygotsky, takes a
long time to make itself entirely clear though the fog of translations.
And your work in that respect is important. But the problem of thoughts
being lost in translation should also, in my view, not be exaggerated.
For example, when a friend first brought a photocopy of the 1962
translation of T&S back to Melbourne from the States, I immediately
recognised the work of a Marxist and a genius in what I read. And yet,
it is said that all the Marxism and all the genius had been translated
out of that work. I am now very conscious of how inadequate that
edition (not to say "translation") was. There is the same issue with
Hegel. Hegel is very difficult to render in any language other than
German. Sometimes, there is no alternative, in decoding a particularly
obtuse piece, than to use my electronic copy of his CW in German. But
generally, I have to say that contrary to what some claim, it is
possible to understand Hegel in English translation, even 19th century
translations. And one learns, over time, the special problems, the
special German words and common translation errors, etc.

So my point is: discussion of Vygotsky is a collective, shared
project. If no-one is deemed to have access to Vygotsky's ideas
(clear or otherwise) except if they use the original Russian, then we
are all barred from discussion (unless you provide a selected
retranslation for us). Therefore, for the sake of dialogue and joint
discussion, we must use published English translations that we can all
gain access to, read and understand, and if there is a particular
problem with a particular passage (eg "remove" means "aufheben",
"category" sometimes means "kategoria", "experience" is perezhivanie",
"activity" is not necessarily Taetigkeit, or this or that line was
omitted, etc., etc.) then someone should say so in the particular
instance, and we all learn more and more as we go on, and still we all
discuss the same shared text. Eventually, your work will
contribute to achieving that I am sure, David.

Martin Luther and King James of England, figured it out 500 or so years
ago. And who knew what God really said anyway?

OK?

comradely,
Andy
:)

David Kellogg wrote: 
Well, if the Vygotsky quote does not say what I claimed it
said, it is probably that I expressed my own views rather clumsily. I
often do. 
> 
>But I'm puzzled. You yourself have said you did not want
to use the MIT press version anymore. In their latest article on what
needs to be done in English, van der Veer and Yasnitsky have called the
Minick translation is "unusable".
> 
>Meccaci is the best translation we have (according to van
der Veer). It's the ONLY translation of the original 1934 edition, you
know; ALL the others to date go back to 1956, which has not a few
political revisions.
> 
>Do you want the original Italian? Do you want the Russian?
Do you want MY translation? I am--as ever--more than happy to oblige:
just tell me what you are looking for.
> 
>I thought you had invented some new-fangled emoticon for
expressing grouchiness. But I see you are just doing it the old
fashioned way. Korean emoticons are, like traditional Korean script,
read vertically; you don't have to tilt your head to see their
iconicity. We also don't smile with our mouths, but with our eyes.
> 
>Like this: ^.^
> 
>David Kellogg
>Seoul National University of Education 
>
>PS: Here's something I read in Chapter Two of "Tool and
Sign" this morning. 
> 
>Как
логическое следствие из признания решающей важности использования
знаков для истории развития высших психических функций в систему
психологических категорий вовлекаются и внешние символические формы
деятельности, такие, как речевое общение, чтение, письмо, счет и
рисование. 
> 
>It
says, if you trust my translation anyway, "As a logical consequence of the acknowledgement of the
decisive importance of the use of signs for the history of the
development of the higher mental functions into a system of
psychological categories, external symbolic forms of activity, such, as
verbal contact, reading, writing, counting and drawing are also
implicated." 
> 
>There are lots of interesting things here, but the one
that struck me was the use of "category". It doesn't, actually, suggest
a theatrical conflict. So at least as of 1930, Anton is right.
> 
>d
> 
>--- On Sat, 7/2/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
>>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 6:31 PM
>>
>>
>>David, you cast doubt on the ancient
idea that mathematics is the science of quantity and said that Vygotsky
was clear on this. If Vygotsky is so clear, then you wouldn't need to
go to an English translation of an Italian translation to find Vygotsky
refuting the idea that mathematics is the science of quantity. But your
re-translation doesn't say this anyway. The colon was a typo.
>>
>>-----------------
>>
>>But let's take up the interesting point you raise anyway, even though
it does not say what you claimed it said, it is nonetheless interesting
and pertinent.
>>
>>Am I right here? A child learns to survey the perceptual field and
point to things one after another reciting "one," "two,"three," ... and
then remember the number they say as they complete the practice. This
is called "counting." And I think it is a way children learn to
abstract the units from a collection in their perceptual field -
pointing to each ion turn and saying the next number. So I think they
don't first abstract the actual objects and then abstract number from
this. Learning the practice of counting is how they learn to abstract
units from a whole.
>>
>>Now, and this is the wonderful thing I learnt from Anna. Just because
the last number I said on completing counting wa "Five!" does not mean
that I know that there are 5 things. In fact, "Five" is a property of
my counting action; but I have to be taught to see "5" as a *property
of the collection of actual things*. AND then I have to learn that "5"
is a *quantity* (a cardinal as well as the last ordinal).
>>
>>So there are two big conceptual leaps involved *after *I learn to
abstract things *by counting* them, before I get to the concept of
quantity ... and the beginnings of a type of mathematics (since other
types of mathematics will grow from other types of quantity).
>>
>>So Bill, I think the position may be this (and please, I am way out of
my comfort zone here, but the July 4 holiday will be over soon and
maybe the cavalry will come to our rescue.) Your kids can't see any 2s
in the 5 of 54, because they see the 5 as an ordinal. They can see 2 2s
in 4, because they have been told so countless times, But they haven't
been able to generalise that knowledge because 5 does not "contain" 4,
it is just the number "after" 4. OK? What do you think? Does that make
sense?
>>
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>>David Kellogg wrote:
>>> I don't understand this, Andy. The short answer is "Sure".
>>>  What is YOUR short answer supposed to mean? In particular, what
does the colon mean? I'm afraid the emoticons that we use in Korea are
a little different.
>>>  dk
>>> 
>>> --- On *Sat, 7/2/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net>/* wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>     Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
>>>     To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>     Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 5:33 AM
>>> 
>>>     So the short answer is ":no."
>>>     a
>>> 
>>>     David Kellogg wrote:
>>>     > Sure, Andy!
>>>     >  This is from Luciano Meccaci's translation of "Thinking
and
>>>     Speech", Chapter Six:
>>>     >     > "If we may say so, the assimilation of a foreign
language raises
>>>     the level of the maternal language (rech) for the child as
much as
>>>     the assimilation of algebra raises to a higher level the
child’s
>>>     arithmetic thinking, because it permits the child to understand
>>>     any arithmetical operation as a particular case of algebraic
>>>     operations, furnishing the child a freer, more abstract, more
>>>     generalized and at the same time more profound and rich view of
>>>     operations on concrete quantitites. Just as algebra frees the
>>>     thinking of the child from its dependence on concrete numbers
and
>>>     raises it to a higher level of more generalized thinking, in
the
>>>     same way the assimilation of a foreign language in completely
>>>     diverse ways frees verbal thinking from the grip of concrete
forms
>>>     and concrete phenomena of language."
>>>     >
>>>     >     > David Kellogg
>>>     >
>>>     > Seoul National University of Education
>>>     >
>>>     >     > --- On *Fri, 7/1/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net
>>>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>/*
>>>     wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >     From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>     >     Subject: Re: [xmca] Numbers - Natural or Real?
>>>     >     To: "Culture ActivityeXtended Mind" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>     >     Date: Friday, July 1, 2011, 10:53 PM
>>>     >
>>>     >     Can you give us your reference here David, in a
pubished
>>>     >     translation of Vygotsky?
>>>     >     andy
>>>     >
>>>     >     David Kellogg wrote:
>>>     >     > ... I don't think that quantity IS the basic
concept in
>>>     >     mathematics, though. Vygotsky is pretty clear about
this: just a
>>>     >     preschooler has to be able to abstract actual objects
away from
>>>     >     groups in order to form the idea of abstract
quantity, the
>>>     >     schoolchild has to be able to abstract quantities
away from
>>>     >     numbers in order to form the idea of RELATIONS between
>>>     quantities,
>>>     >     or OPERATORS.
>>>     >     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >     __________________________________________
>>>     >     _____
>>>     >     xmca mailing list
>>>     >     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>     >        <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>     >     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>     >
>>> 
>>>     --
>>> 
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *Andy Blunden*
>>>     Joint Editor MCA:
>>>     http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
>>>     <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
>>>     Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>     Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
>>>     <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>>     MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     __________________________________________
>>>     _____
>>>     xmca mailing list
>>>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>     <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> 
>>
>>--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>*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
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 

-- 
________________________________
 *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
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca