These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Hi Martin, I fully agree, there is a world between the use of the word and the use of the concept, and children do not grasp them as abstract concepts. I do not consider that these are more than embryos of abstract concepts for them, but I observe a different kind of treatment of these kinds of our abstract concepts compared to a full range of others. So the question is : is it significant that these get their attention compared to others (if that is anyway more regular than just my three or four observed cases) ? Because it is not just the sound of the words vitamin or microbe that please them. Cheers LK 2011/3/30 Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> > Hi Laure, > > Can I ask what it is that makes you consider that when these children are > using words such as "microbe" and "vitamin" they understand these as > abstract concepts? I ask because Vygotsky's position certainly ( I have > chapter 5 of T&L open in front of me!) was that while what we see in young > children may "appear superficially to resemble real concepts" and while they > "fulfill a similar function" in solving tasks and communicating with other > people, in fact in their nature, their composition, and their structure they > are to abstract concepts as "an embryo to the mature organism." He writes > that "to identify one with the other would be to ignore the lengthy process > of development and to place an equals sign between its beginning and its > final stage." The final stage, for Vygotsky, is reached only in adolescence. > > Of course the fact that to you the children's understanding may *appear* > like that of an adolescent or an adult actually plays an important part in > the developmental process, because what it is "for others" is a necessary > step towards what it becomes "for the child itself." > > Martin > > On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Laure Kloetzer wrote: > > > Dears, > > > > Many famous psychologists took advantage of having children to trigger > ideas > > on human development. Observing our little ones, I am surprised by how > > easily very small children (2,5 and 3,5 years old) pick up abstract > concepts > > as "microbe" and "vitamin" just encountered a few times in everyday > parental > > discourses. Crossed with the interesting fact that small children easily > > evoque death in their games, songs and stories, I was wondering whether > > these small facts did not give some argument for a priviledged cognitive > > treatment of health- and life-related topics. Do you know if this topic > has > > been the object of recent interesting works ? Thanks for sharing your > > insights on this parental observations (I have many more but most of them > > strongly evoke some Vygotskian laws...) > > Best, > > LK > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > 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