These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
My source: I had a copy (in English) with the notion -" translation approved by AL". It was a copy that Sylvia Scribner had in her files. I have since send that copy to Mike Cole - who is more knowledgable than I about the provenance. I believe that was the copy that found its way in to Mind in Society (though not sure about that). When Mike received the MS he offered a an opinion about the MS.. Tool and Sign was, I believe, intended for the first volume of the Manual of Child Psychology (in English). In the MS it was "authored" by Vygotsky and Alexander Romanovitch Luria. I also believe that Elkohonon Goldberg was the translator. I believe it was translated *to* the English in order to be published in English. Joe Glick On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote: > In the prologue to Volume Four of the English language Collected Works of > L.S. Vygotsky (Plenum 1997, p. vi), Joseph Glick says that Tool and Sign in > Child Devleopment was translated from the English manuscript. This claim is > also made in van der Veer and Valsiner's Understanding Vygotsy (Blackwell, > 1991, p. 188). > > But on p. 174 of the Vygotsky Reader, footnote 60 refers to a handwritten > note on the English manuscript that refers the reader to a > "Russian original". This MIGHT suggest that the Russian original was lost > and the the Russian version printed in the Russian Collected Works > (and also translated into English in the volume introduced by Professor > Glick) really was translated from the English. > > But that version is clearly in a less heaviliy edited state (with far more > repetitions and redundancies). This has been explained by "editorial > manipulations". But the problem is that the repetitions and redundancies > are not word for word; it's not the sort of thing a manipulating editor > would do. > > But it is the sort of thing that an author who had large amounts of text > virtually memorized (for the purpose of classes) might do in the days > before cutting and pasting on a computer. That is, Vygotsky and/or Luria > would have a huge amount of argument almost word for word in several places > in the manuscript and then cut one or the other before translation for > publication (when they noticed the redundancy). > > Does anyone know Professor Glick? I would like to know about the claim > that the Russian manuscript was retranslated from English. > > David Kellogg > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > mbol > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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