These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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,That's a good approach. I'd also be happy to. Perhaps others will join in.
Your overview nicely touches on many essential points in T&S.On the "equation" question, you seem to be saying that you don't think Vygotsky was drawing an identity or equation between word meaning and the concept. I will ponder that a little. I think we should return to that line of questioning - what did Vygotsky mean by the terms word meaning, concept and generalization - and what did he mean by some of his statements that suggest these three terms are "synonymous"?
****************I have another area of questions we might look at. First, a list, and then a couple three questions about it.
This list derives from an important aspect of T&S that is both very different from the "equation" question - but is also closely related to it, because it involves Vygotsky's core methodological approach, analysis into units. As has been discussed many times, LSV alternatively refers to word meaning as a unit, a unity, and in the CW Vol 1 translation (Minick), a "unit of analysis."
An interesting aside: Holbrook Mahn argues that the specific term "unit of analysis" does not appear in the original Russian. The term only appears twice in the Minick translation, as far as I can tell. This term is used to refer to word meaning on p 47 and the sound in linguistics on p 49.
Here are some examples I've found of units, unities and units of analysis pertaining to word meaning that Vygotsky discusses in T&S:
Word meaning is: a unit of verbal thinking p 47, 244a unit (of thinking and social interaction mediated by a sign system) p 48
a unit of thinking p 48 a unity of generalization and social interaction p 49 a unity of thinking and communication p 49 a unity of thinking and speech p 49, 244 a unity of word and thought p 244 a unit of analysis (of thinking and speech) p 47 ***************** Some other examples: the word is: a unit of sound and meaning p 46 the phoneme is: the basic unit of speech p 49-50 (sound and meaning) *****************One question to ask: What is Vygotsky's distinction between the meanings of the terms "unit" and "unity"?
*****************A second question: In these various descriptions of the unity-pairs that compose word meaning, was it Vygotsky's intention to suggest that they are essentially synonymous, that is, are they referring to essentially the same processes?
(Social interaction, communication, speech, word ... thought, generalization, thinking ...)
****************A third question: This one relates to the discussion of the "psychological aspects" of word meaning. In each of these unities, there appears to be both a material and ideal aspect, or more roughly, both an external and internal aspect, or put still another way, both a social and a psychological aspect. Was this Vygotsky's intention?
*************** - Steve On Apr 22, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
Hi Steve,I'm happy to debate this further; the text is by no means transparent, and what I am most concerned to do is arrive at a coherent reading, putting to one side for the time being whether one agrees or disagrees with the position we reconstruct as Vygotsky's.Here's my thinking. In T&S LSV was exploring the relationship between thinking and speaking, between thought and word. He points out more than once that two phenomena cannot be said to have a relationship if they are completely independent, nor if they are identical. I infer from this that thought and word cannot be the same thing, but nor are they completely different.LSV was intent on providing an explanation of how a child comes to be able to think individually, especially how they become able to think conceptually. Evidently the explanation will have the general form that the child is first able to do interpersonally what they can later do intrapersonally. The word, as something interpersonal, is an important part of the explanation. In particular, the inner form of the word. But to *equate* the word, or word-meaning, with the concept, to say that these two are identical, would be to short- circuit both the explanation and the ontogenetic process.To put it another way, the infant is surrounded by, living in, a social world in which speech is ubiquitous. The sounds the infant hears are words with 'inner form,' they have meaning - a phenomenon that linguists can study. But for the infant they are not even words. To recognize that the sounds are words, that the words are distinct from the objects they seem to be associated with, that these words involve a unity of sound and meaning, that the meaning can be used to generalize, and that generalization can be conceptual - all these are later developments.This is why, IMHO, LSV wrote of word-meaning *from the psychological aspect* as a concept. To use a word is unavoidably to generalize - words refer to or signify or stand for a *class* of things, not a particular thing. The young child using words is generalizing *for others,* but not yet for self. The child is unconsciously using word- meaning, but certainly is not using concepts. The adult, thinking conceptually, is generalizing *for self,* and only when they complete their thinking in words are they also generalizing for others.Martin On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:Martin, if I understand you, you are saying that according to Vygotsky, word meaning, in its psychological sense, is not a concept, and is not a generalization.This isn't corresponding to my reading of T&S. You seem to be making a distinction I am not seeing. Could you elaborate?Btw, your reading of the quote from Vol 1 7.1 p 247 about Ach might need revisiting. I think Vygotsky meant that if one believes, as Ach did, that word meaning is fixed, then one cannot recognize change and development in concept formation.I don't believe Vygotsky was trying to say that it is a mistake to identify word meaning ... in the sense of **Vygotsky's** understanding of it, as changing and developing ... with the concept. I think he was trying to say that it is a mistake to identify word meaning ... in the sense of **Ach's** understanding of it, as fixed and unchanging ... with the concept. See what you think.Here are a couple more quotes from T&S that might be interesting to consider."At any stage of its development, the concept is an **act of generalization**. The most important finding of all research in this field is that the concept -- represented psychologically as word meaning -- develops." T&S, Vol 1, Ch 6.1, p 169-170 [emphasis original -sg]"Psychologically, the development of concepts and the development of word meaning are one and the same process." Vol 1, T&S, Ch 6.1, p 180- Steve On Apr 20, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Martin Packer wrote:Eric,I don't know, I think LSV makes it pretty clear that word-meaning is not the concept. He criticizes Ach, who:"identifies concept and word meaning, and thus precludes any possibility of change and development in concepts" (T&S chapter 6, para 16).MartinOn Apr 21, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Martin Packer wrote:On Apr 21, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:Good ol' Lev is never that unambiguous is he, though? Consider this:“This justifies the view that word meaning is an act of speech. Inpsychological terms, however, word meaning is nothing other than ageneralization, that is, a /concept/. In essence, generalization and word meaning are synonyms. Any generalization – any formation of a concept – is unquestionably a specific and true act of thought. Thus word meaning is also a phenomenon of thinking” (Vygotsky Volume 1: 244).AndyAndy, Let me offer this cleaner version of what you have found (basically it's David K's 'triangulated' translation). From the start of chapter 7. You highlight the word "concept." But notice that the meaning of a word is a generalization *from the psychological side.* Words are used, in acts of speech and in acts of thought. When a word is used in an act of thought, it is to generalize. But that doesn't mean that word meaning in itself is an act of thought, or that word meaning itself is a concept."We found this unit, showing in simplest form a unity of thought and speech, within the meaning of the word [значении слова]. The meaning of the word, as we attempted to clarify above, represents a further indecomposable unity of the two processes, beyond which we can not say that it represents the phenomenon of speech or the phenomenon of thinking. A word devoid of meaning is not a word, it is an empty sound, hence meaning is a required, constitutive feature of the word. It is the word itself, viewed from the inside. Thus, we seem sufficiently entitled to study it as a phenomenon of speech. But the meaning of the word from the psychological side, as we have been repeatedly convinced in this entire study, is nothing but a generalization, or concept. Generalization [Обобщение] and meaning of the word are synonymous. Any generalization, any formation of a concept [образование понятия], is the most specific, authentic, most obvious act of thought. Therefore, we have the right to think of the meaning of the word as a phenomenon of thinking."The meaning of the word is both a spoken and an intellectual phenomenon, and this does not mean a purely external participation in two different mental lives. The meaning of the word is a phenomenon of thought only in so far as the thought relates to the word and is embodied in the word, and vice versa: it is a phenomenon of speech only insofar as it relates to thought and is illuminated by its light. It is a phenomenon of verbal thought, or of meaningful words; it is the unity of speech and thought."Martin__________________________________________ _____ 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