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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

A coupla remarks.

I have been a huge beneficiary of the continued translations, discussions,
interpretations of Vygotsky's work that got started in earnest in the late
1970's.

Calling the labor prior scholars "unusuable" assumes an attitude toward the
certainty of translation across intellectual/cultural/language traditions
about "the one right translation" that I believe unfortunate.

The word research, in English, carries within in it the spirit of inquiry
that seems to
fit this threat pretty well:  to research, re-search, is to search again. To
search for meaning in those of someone's ideas that made it into print,
giving it the illusion of "the original."

The pressing question that this discussion seems to bring up is the
following:

What difference(s) does a difference in translation make? What old,
unsolvable problems have been solved? What new apparently disparate sets of
ideas brought
together in a way to create deeper insight, for example, into the relation
between thought and language? Or the developmental signicance of written
language? Or?

If our language is getting ever more precise and closer to THE TRUTH
shouldn't we be able to think/act more effectively?

I think examples CAN be found of where translation/interpretation
differences make a difference. I would choose the scaffolding/zoped
discussion as one arena for such an inquiry.

The mis-translations of "obuchenie" I was involved in were bi-directional
nationally and in each case traceable to implicit ideas about the domain of
phenomena under consideration. When we first discovered this mistake, we put
it into the LCHC newletter and teaching/learning became not only the term we
used in our discussions, it guided the way we organized children's
activities and how we thought about a lot of what we were doing.

Hopefully July 3, 2011 is not the end of history.

mike
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:

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