This assigned reading thankfully answered more questions than it generated, but I can’t get too excited just yet. I’ll probably find out during our discussions later that I misinterpreted some of Vygotsky, and I’ll be just as confused as ever. Anyway, I now know why last week’s selection came to be so confusing and why I had difficulty discerning Vygotsky’s work from that of Piaget’s: Vygotsky uses the word we when he discusses his theories and findings which somehow completely threw me off.
First, a few questions: On page 170 when Vygotsky refers to generalizations of inner forms of activity, what exactly is he talking about? I reread this part a couple of times and still no light bulb flickered. Then I attempted to comprehend the bottom of page 172 about the notion of scientific concept. Again, I reread but just couldn’t figure it out. Same thing with Gestalt psychology. I even tried looking it up only to find an extremely dense and incomprehensible definition. Any help in these areas would be greatly appreciated. The rest went rather smoothly, so perhaps these parts were not so crucial to understanding the whole.
Reading Koffka’s findings on page 177 made me think of an article in TIME Magazine I read about 2 or 3 years ago. Scientific data can now confirm that our brains do not fully develop until we reach the age of about 25. Most of the maturation in the later years comes to our reasoning skills, which explains why we may perhaps do more foolish things in our later teens and early twenties than when we get older. If I remember correctly, the article focused on the scientific data from three brothers, using medical history, interviews and brain images from scans. This scientific data could be used to argue that 18 is much too young to be considered an adult in any situation from voting to fighting in a war to drinking to committing crimes.
Interestingly, on page 189, Montessori theorizes that there are periods of time when instruction is most fruitful because that is when the child is most receptive to it. This would certainly lend itself to the theory that it’s easier to learn another or several languages when we are younger as our brains are more receptive to the instruction. Many schools, Cumberland Valley being one, are now or will soon be offering foreign languages in the lower grades and not waiting until middle school or even high school. This idea then connects to Montessori’s data on teaching kids to write early, finding that children are responding by “explosive writing.” This, in turn, made me think of Macrorie’s lamentations that younger students who have not yet been taught Engfish communicate better in writing than those in high school or college. Would it be possible to nurture this “abundant and imaginative use of written speech” so that it remains intact throughout life?
As I moved through the rest of the selection, I was fascinated by Vygotsky’s theories on inner speech, egocentric speech, and external speech and the translation from thought into words. It fully explains why students (and myself, at times as well!) have such difficulty putting their thoughts down on paper. Many of us voraciously search our brains (or our handy thesaurus) until we can find the words that can give birth to our thoughts, whether adequate or not. But if we lack the vocabulary, we lack some of our options and can become frustrated, just as the poor peasant who must address an official. This same concept can be seen in our students. They cannot always find the words to fully express themselves to the teacher (the official) and, therefore, become frustrated, even to the point of thinking themselves unable to write and give up.
One last thought before I close this blog. On page 241, Vyogtsky discusses a story from Dostoevsky after observing a conversation between drunks whereby they use only one word (I still am not sure what that word is), but it means so many different things within the conversation. This reminded me of a scene from Boondock Saints when Willem Dafoe uses the f-word in more ways and with more meanings than I could possibly imagine. It’s a bit on the disgusting side, but I would recommend seeing this one if you haven’t already.
Last Wednesday, while I was driving home from class, this song came on the radio and, call me weird, I thought of our discussion:
"What's Up" by Four Non Blondes
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
And I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs (this part is especially for Chris)
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Ooh, ooh ooh
And I try, oh my god do I try
I try all the time, in this institution
And I pray, oh my god do I pray
I pray every single day
For a revolution
And so I cry sometimes
When I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out
What's in my head
And I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning
And I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream at the top of my lungs
What's going on?
And I say, hey hey hey hey
I said hey, what's going on?
Twenty - five years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination.
There was also a psychic on the radio on another station discussing the very thing Julie brought up about altered states of consciousness. I can share that if anyone is interested.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
This blog is going to be short and disjointed. The former is how I sometimes wish Vygotsky could be, and the latter is how reading him makes me feel!
"Every sentence that we say in real life has some kind of subtext, a thought hidden behind it." (250)
The thread of thought running through this book, to which I seem to return and worry at as if it were hanging from my coat, is the subjectivity of thought and language, not just in themselves but in their development and structure as well. Vygotsky's discussion of where consciousness comes from, leading to the analysis of education's relationship with mental development, stirred the question I have asked a hundred times. What are the factors that keep my students from intellectually developing at the same rate, some advancing and others lagging far behind? Why is it that "sytematicity and consciousness do not come from outside"(172) and higher mental functions that contribute to mental development are seen as highly social, dependent on "cooperation with adults and and on instruction."?(189) The development of consciousness and of higher order mental skills seem both to be social and specific to individual experience, which would support the later discussion of word meaning and its constant change. It seems the subjectivity of the development of consciousness and mental acuity, caused by the social contributions that shape the meaning of that development, supports the perception of individual concepts of reality and therefore the fluid nature of word meanings. "It is not merely the content of a word that changes, but the way in which reality is generalized and reflected in a word." (213) The individual's concept of reality, their consciousness of being conscious must have an environmental factor in its development, and therefore a subjective element to their systemacity and semantics as well.
"Every sentence that we say in real life has some kind of subtext, a thought hidden behind it." (250)
The thread of thought running through this book, to which I seem to return and worry at as if it were hanging from my coat, is the subjectivity of thought and language, not just in themselves but in their development and structure as well. Vygotsky's discussion of where consciousness comes from, leading to the analysis of education's relationship with mental development, stirred the question I have asked a hundred times. What are the factors that keep my students from intellectually developing at the same rate, some advancing and others lagging far behind? Why is it that "sytematicity and consciousness do not come from outside"(172) and higher mental functions that contribute to mental development are seen as highly social, dependent on "cooperation with adults and and on instruction."?(189) The development of consciousness and of higher order mental skills seem both to be social and specific to individual experience, which would support the later discussion of word meaning and its constant change. It seems the subjectivity of the development of consciousness and mental acuity, caused by the social contributions that shape the meaning of that development, supports the perception of individual concepts of reality and therefore the fluid nature of word meanings. "It is not merely the content of a word that changes, but the way in which reality is generalized and reflected in a word." (213) The individual's concept of reality, their consciousness of being conscious must have an environmental factor in its development, and therefore a subjective element to their systemacity and semantics as well.
Vygotsky Part 2--Electric Bugaloo
So again, we tackle consciousness, or at least Vygotsky and Piaget's notion of it. I felt in this section at least Vygotsky was clear on clarifying the different definitions of consciousness, whereas other times he left things unexplained (that really could have used the clarification, but we did get that in class, so thank you!). I liked when Vygostsky connected what Piaget thought of consciousness with egocentrism, due to my ongoing interest from it last week: "According to Piaget's developmental model, the child's thought reflects the changing equilibrium between egocentrism, which is connected with a certain deficit of conscious control, and socialization. This model implies that the child's thought is not fully conscious; it contains conscious as well as unconscious elements" (Vygotsky 169).
I felt that what Piaget was getting at here was when a child engaged in egocentrism, their thoughts may not completely controlled. Again, I struggled because even though I know what egocentrism means v. "thinking out loud" I can see this happening when children blurt things out that they do not mean too, and for them, they do not realize if they are saying things consciously or unconsciously (whereas an adult can realize a "Freudian slip" after they've said it). I think this must be an interesting phrase to go through a) as a child and b) as an adult experiencing and seeing this in children.
Another part that I thought was interesting was the dynamic value of words rather than them being static. I guess this is another well, not duh, moment, but I have to remember to put it into context that this book was written back in the early 1900s and that this was new, but in a way it is still new today because I feel like we do take this for granted. The denotative and connotative meanings of words do constantly evolve. And of course taking semantics and other things (like external and phonetic as Vygotsky points out) into consideration, its no wonder the English language ( or any language) are so terribly hard to completely become literate in.
Vygotsky brings up that, "in mastering external speech, the child starts from one word.. then connects two or three words...and finally to coherent speech made of up series of such sentences...from a part to a whole...Semantically, the child starts from the whole, from a meaningful complex only later begins to master the separate semantic units" (219). I thought this was really insightful, because it shows how different the two aspects are, yet as Vygotsky points out, "reveal[ing' their inner relatedness as clearly as it does their distinction" (219) Therefore, even if they develop at different stages (part to whole v. whole to part) this proves the inherent connection between thought and words to meaning. It also gave me a greater appreciation for what a child has to go through in order to express something as, "a child's thought, precisely because it is born as dim, amorphous whole, must find expression in a single word" (219). It sounds so simplistic... okay, I must express something in a single word, but to a child, just learning to talk and express, its got to be a really interesting, complex process (that they may or may not even be completely conscious of.
I felt that what Piaget was getting at here was when a child engaged in egocentrism, their thoughts may not completely controlled. Again, I struggled because even though I know what egocentrism means v. "thinking out loud" I can see this happening when children blurt things out that they do not mean too, and for them, they do not realize if they are saying things consciously or unconsciously (whereas an adult can realize a "Freudian slip" after they've said it). I think this must be an interesting phrase to go through a) as a child and b) as an adult experiencing and seeing this in children.
Another part that I thought was interesting was the dynamic value of words rather than them being static. I guess this is another well, not duh, moment, but I have to remember to put it into context that this book was written back in the early 1900s and that this was new, but in a way it is still new today because I feel like we do take this for granted. The denotative and connotative meanings of words do constantly evolve. And of course taking semantics and other things (like external and phonetic as Vygotsky points out) into consideration, its no wonder the English language ( or any language) are so terribly hard to completely become literate in.
Vygotsky brings up that, "in mastering external speech, the child starts from one word.. then connects two or three words...and finally to coherent speech made of up series of such sentences...from a part to a whole...Semantically, the child starts from the whole, from a meaningful complex only later begins to master the separate semantic units" (219). I thought this was really insightful, because it shows how different the two aspects are, yet as Vygotsky points out, "reveal[ing' their inner relatedness as clearly as it does their distinction" (219) Therefore, even if they develop at different stages (part to whole v. whole to part) this proves the inherent connection between thought and words to meaning. It also gave me a greater appreciation for what a child has to go through in order to express something as, "a child's thought, precisely because it is born as dim, amorphous whole, must find expression in a single word" (219). It sounds so simplistic... okay, I must express something in a single word, but to a child, just learning to talk and express, its got to be a really interesting, complex process (that they may or may not even be completely conscious of.
I speak therefore I am...
I was fascinated by the ideas in this week's reading. It helped that I could understand them without the three PhDs and an unabridged dictionary.
In the development of writing, Vgotsky postulates , "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block, not the underdevelopment of small muscles or any other mechanical obstacles" (181). This was really magic to me, and it became even more clear in the last chapter. I kept thinking of my students and their differing writing abilities. Sometimes I'll ask a student to sit down and tell me what she meant by a particular sentence or paragraph that was confusing for me as the reader. Then she explains it, and I'll often say, "Why didn't you just write that? You just clarified it for me." So, if I understand this correctly, she is moving from internal speech where, "...we trust ourselves without proof" (243 attributed to Piaget). What may have seemed clear in her head suffers when she tries to get her thoughts on paper. Me asking her to tell me what she intends, means that she's adding a step, i.e. external speech where she will have to articulate her thoughts out loud, then go back and redraft the writing.
Why is it so hard to teach writing? I'm always asking myself this question. What words for one student may not work for another. Vgotsky writes, "The motives for writing [as opposed to conversation] are more abstract, more intellectualized, further removed from immediate needs. In written speech, we are obliged to create the situation, to represent it to ourselves. This demands detachment from actual situation" (181). Is this one of the reasons why it's so hard to teach writing? Here's an idea that makes the abstraction easier to deal with. I was given a class a few years ago in which the students were worse than below basic. I guess I knew in my gut that the abstract part of writing was going to be a problem, or maybe I tried with little success. I can't remember. In any case, I used an idea that enabled the kids to write without "creating the situation". I asked them to think of a product they had bought but were unhappy with. It didn't work, didn't taste good, fell apart, etc. They had to write actual letters to those companies with their complaints. This was a hit. It was concrete. And we got some fantastic responses! Kelly Gallagher, in Teaching Adolescent Writers suggests the same thing. Start with writing assignments that are concrete and slowly move to the abstract.
Chapter 7 made clear some of the ideas we talked about last week. Vgotsky writes on page 210 that "A connection originates, [between thought and word] changes, and grows in the course of the evolution of thinking and speech" and that "...word meanings develop" (212). This continues throughout life. A child learns the word black as a color. In grade school, he may learn about a black cat in the context of superstitions. Developmentally, he is not ready to understand the more advanced connotations of the word. Black may be associated with mystery, or if you want to go to more sophisticated level, black may become associated with evil, as in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. This connects to what Vgotsky says about writing. As we mature, we have huge suitcases full of words and their associated meanings. When we write, it takes more words for us to make sure our intended meaning is clear to our audience.
This was great stuff! I couldn't help thinking about the way we teach reading and writing. This gave me some ways to understand ideas I've stumbled on that worked, and ways to keep trying.
In the development of writing, Vgotsky postulates , "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block, not the underdevelopment of small muscles or any other mechanical obstacles" (181). This was really magic to me, and it became even more clear in the last chapter. I kept thinking of my students and their differing writing abilities. Sometimes I'll ask a student to sit down and tell me what she meant by a particular sentence or paragraph that was confusing for me as the reader. Then she explains it, and I'll often say, "Why didn't you just write that? You just clarified it for me." So, if I understand this correctly, she is moving from internal speech where, "...we trust ourselves without proof" (243 attributed to Piaget). What may have seemed clear in her head suffers when she tries to get her thoughts on paper. Me asking her to tell me what she intends, means that she's adding a step, i.e. external speech where she will have to articulate her thoughts out loud, then go back and redraft the writing.
Why is it so hard to teach writing? I'm always asking myself this question. What words for one student may not work for another. Vgotsky writes, "The motives for writing [as opposed to conversation] are more abstract, more intellectualized, further removed from immediate needs. In written speech, we are obliged to create the situation, to represent it to ourselves. This demands detachment from actual situation" (181). Is this one of the reasons why it's so hard to teach writing? Here's an idea that makes the abstraction easier to deal with. I was given a class a few years ago in which the students were worse than below basic. I guess I knew in my gut that the abstract part of writing was going to be a problem, or maybe I tried with little success. I can't remember. In any case, I used an idea that enabled the kids to write without "creating the situation". I asked them to think of a product they had bought but were unhappy with. It didn't work, didn't taste good, fell apart, etc. They had to write actual letters to those companies with their complaints. This was a hit. It was concrete. And we got some fantastic responses! Kelly Gallagher, in Teaching Adolescent Writers suggests the same thing. Start with writing assignments that are concrete and slowly move to the abstract.
Chapter 7 made clear some of the ideas we talked about last week. Vgotsky writes on page 210 that "A connection originates, [between thought and word] changes, and grows in the course of the evolution of thinking and speech" and that "...word meanings develop" (212). This continues throughout life. A child learns the word black as a color. In grade school, he may learn about a black cat in the context of superstitions. Developmentally, he is not ready to understand the more advanced connotations of the word. Black may be associated with mystery, or if you want to go to more sophisticated level, black may become associated with evil, as in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. This connects to what Vgotsky says about writing. As we mature, we have huge suitcases full of words and their associated meanings. When we write, it takes more words for us to make sure our intended meaning is clear to our audience.
This was great stuff! I couldn't help thinking about the way we teach reading and writing. This gave me some ways to understand ideas I've stumbled on that worked, and ways to keep trying.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meaning
"Thought is not merely expresed in words; it comes into existence through them" (218). So it's when we can crystalize our thought and put words to it that it actually becomes real. It makes complete sense to me. This is exactly what writing and/or reflection does for me. It forces me to form words from my thinking. I have all these ideas (concepts? thoughts?) freely floating around in my head that don't or can't crystalize until I write or reflect about them. It's only when I try to make sense of my thinking by putting it into words that I really know what I know. That's Vygotsky' point when he says that "It [thought] does not merely find expression in speech; it finds its reality and form " (219). It happens to me all the time - sometimes in writing but also from reflection. When I reflect (usually while jogging), I can form meaningful thoughts out of all the gobbledeegook floating around in that brain of mine. When I talk to someone about "what's on my mind," my thoughts tend to be much deeper and richer if I've reflected or written about them first. Oh if only I could always 'think' that way - I'd put my foot in my mouth so much less!
I buy intoVygotsky's theory that egocentric speech is a stage of development that precedes inner speech in a downward kind of curve. It just makes sense. It also seems logical that "egocentric speech disappears when the feeling of being understood is absent" (233). If your audience doesn't get what you're saying, then why verbalize it? Keep it inside your own head where it does make sense.
It further computes that there is more predication in inner speech. I DO know what the subject of my thoughts are so I DON'T need to mention it to myself. And I've been in the position- more than once- where my thoughts are so clear in my own head, but they don't seem to be clear to my audience. I'll have to remember to ponder whether it's a predication issue. Do I need to flesh out the subject more in order to be understood? Is the subject so clear to me that I'm just oblivious to what I need to communicate to my audience? I do believe that there are those people who can be intimately connected, that they might indeed be able to communicate their thoughts with mere letters instead of words. Oh to be Kitty and Levin! I realize those are fictional characters but I think it can happen in real life. The next time I feel such a connection, I'm going to speak in letters. If anybody feels that connection to me, try to guess what I'm saying here..."T a f, s y i c o W."
I buy intoVygotsky's theory that egocentric speech is a stage of development that precedes inner speech in a downward kind of curve. It just makes sense. It also seems logical that "egocentric speech disappears when the feeling of being understood is absent" (233). If your audience doesn't get what you're saying, then why verbalize it? Keep it inside your own head where it does make sense.
It further computes that there is more predication in inner speech. I DO know what the subject of my thoughts are so I DON'T need to mention it to myself. And I've been in the position- more than once- where my thoughts are so clear in my own head, but they don't seem to be clear to my audience. I'll have to remember to ponder whether it's a predication issue. Do I need to flesh out the subject more in order to be understood? Is the subject so clear to me that I'm just oblivious to what I need to communicate to my audience? I do believe that there are those people who can be intimately connected, that they might indeed be able to communicate their thoughts with mere letters instead of words. Oh to be Kitty and Levin! I realize those are fictional characters but I think it can happen in real life. The next time I feel such a connection, I'm going to speak in letters. If anybody feels that connection to me, try to guess what I'm saying here..."T a f, s y i c o W."
Holy Crap
Holy crap.
Can that be the whole blog? Holy crap? That packs a lot of meaning if you dwell on it long enough.
So, this Vygotsky. Nothing can just happen because it happens. He has to have a reason and a theory and a psychological law and over-think. I am specifically referring to page 163, the second paragraph. I mean, I truly have no idea what all these words mean when they are put together in sentences like this. Is this just babble? Are these his own inner thoughts that are the gibberish that he was talking about in earlier chapters? It really aggravates me that I really want to understand what he's talking about, and it's like this language is purposely used...to what...make me figure it out on my own and possibly not get what he intended? Is that the purpose? Why can't a child just respond to a question in the manner that the child responded simply because they are not developmentally ready to reason through their response? And how about the fact that if the child is apparently unaware of their own response then a theorist cannot pick it apart when the child clearly cannot articulate *why* they responded that way? These "theories" are just opinions...unless some brain child was actually able to say..."well, I answered that way because I am unaware of what I am really talking about at my age, and here's why." It all sounds very thought-provoking when you have all those big words together. Makes it look like the person knows what they are talking about. Who would question someone who uses all those big words. If you question them, they'll use more big words and chew the questioner up with even bigger words. They'll even write books just to show you who's right. I'm so annoyed right now.
Even on page 165...the bottom...Piaget's "theory" (Vygotsky's argument for dispensing it, anyway) that higher levels of thinking recur in later stages with a higher developmental level of thinking. Really? You mean the older we get the more we think on a higher level? And Vygotsky has to argue that this is not enough, that we need to analyze the growth and awareness? And at the bottom of 166, he insists that there is a more important central issue (his own of course) that to me, sounds just like what Piaget refers to in his Law of Shift, only with bigger words.
Ooh. Here we go. I agree. Page 187. And it's not gibberish. "With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself-though only within the limits set by the state of his development." He could have written a whole book about this without sounding pompous. I like this. I immediately thought of the various groupings of kids I have in remediation. Even within those groups, although they are within the same reading level, some are still more capable than others. It's their developmental level-some are further ahead and will move faster than others.
I'll end with that. Well, not before I point out that on page 213 there is a profound statement. "Linguistics did not realize that in the historical revolution of language the very structure of meaning and its psychological nature also change." No. You mean words change meaning as time moves forward? Or maybe disappear altogether? I guess he did not know that the word "necessary"...the way he uses it...used to mean "bathroom" in the 1700's and early 1800's.
Can that be the whole blog? Holy crap? That packs a lot of meaning if you dwell on it long enough.
So, this Vygotsky. Nothing can just happen because it happens. He has to have a reason and a theory and a psychological law and over-think. I am specifically referring to page 163, the second paragraph. I mean, I truly have no idea what all these words mean when they are put together in sentences like this. Is this just babble? Are these his own inner thoughts that are the gibberish that he was talking about in earlier chapters? It really aggravates me that I really want to understand what he's talking about, and it's like this language is purposely used...to what...make me figure it out on my own and possibly not get what he intended? Is that the purpose? Why can't a child just respond to a question in the manner that the child responded simply because they are not developmentally ready to reason through their response? And how about the fact that if the child is apparently unaware of their own response then a theorist cannot pick it apart when the child clearly cannot articulate *why* they responded that way? These "theories" are just opinions...unless some brain child was actually able to say..."well, I answered that way because I am unaware of what I am really talking about at my age, and here's why." It all sounds very thought-provoking when you have all those big words together. Makes it look like the person knows what they are talking about. Who would question someone who uses all those big words. If you question them, they'll use more big words and chew the questioner up with even bigger words. They'll even write books just to show you who's right. I'm so annoyed right now.
Even on page 165...the bottom...Piaget's "theory" (Vygotsky's argument for dispensing it, anyway) that higher levels of thinking recur in later stages with a higher developmental level of thinking. Really? You mean the older we get the more we think on a higher level? And Vygotsky has to argue that this is not enough, that we need to analyze the growth and awareness? And at the bottom of 166, he insists that there is a more important central issue (his own of course) that to me, sounds just like what Piaget refers to in his Law of Shift, only with bigger words.
Ooh. Here we go. I agree. Page 187. And it's not gibberish. "With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself-though only within the limits set by the state of his development." He could have written a whole book about this without sounding pompous. I like this. I immediately thought of the various groupings of kids I have in remediation. Even within those groups, although they are within the same reading level, some are still more capable than others. It's their developmental level-some are further ahead and will move faster than others.
I'll end with that. Well, not before I point out that on page 213 there is a profound statement. "Linguistics did not realize that in the historical revolution of language the very structure of meaning and its psychological nature also change." No. You mean words change meaning as time moves forward? Or maybe disappear altogether? I guess he did not know that the word "necessary"...the way he uses it...used to mean "bathroom" in the 1700's and early 1800's.
What, are you thinking about, honey?
ok, so the man repeats himself occasionally. That's something we've all done, especially when we aren't sure if our audience is ready for what we have just said. So occasionally, we repeat ourselves; that's something we've all done. really, though, Vygotsky's reflective study and inferences centering on abstraction and the use of second order symbols bears repeating. So I'll repeat 3 of his points.
By focusing on the activity of abstraction, of generalization, we dig beneath the appearance level to the essential level. It is the hierarchical nature of the conceptual system that allows people to both live in the world and, to some degree, to understand each other. If we only had concepts which related directly to single objects, every experience would be unique and hence, unexplainable. While Vygotsky focuses on "science," any conceptual system makes use of hierarchy and generalization. Overgeneralization (stereotyping) can be dysfunctional, as can generalization based on false premises, but that does not, truthfully cannot, invalidate the need of generalizations to reflection and consciousness. "The scientific concept, thus, stands in a different relation to the object, in a relation achievable only in conceptual form, which, in its turn, is possible only through a system of concepts." (173)Holy dependent clauses, LevMan! Substitute "literate" for "scientific," and try that one out.
On page 181, he expounds that "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block." While prior to our transitional/digital age, this means it is the translation of inner speech into a new system that is the hard part. Prior practice with other methods of abstraction and non-indicative symbols would seem to me likely to ease this difficulty (i.e. Any activity that involves consciousness of consciousness, like tactical games or abstract art should have a beneficial effect on the process of writing).
And now, the explanation of my title. "Inner speech works with semantics, not phonetics." (244) Analogously, it doesn't work with inscribed symbols, either. Since it is so personal, so caught up in meaning, previously accepted sense, and assumptions, no wonder we can "say it in our heads" but have such difficulty getting it on paper. This is also why the titular question is so cruel. I cannot explain "what I'm thinking" in the short time it takes to ask the question, but no one that asks that questions wants a full explanation of why I was thinking about how a fight between a crocodile and a hippo would go, and all the interconnected emotions and memories that have their locus in that imaginary conflict, so my usual answer is, "Uh...nothing?"
256 "...all consciousness is connected with the development of the word." Wow. Heavy.
One last thought. Page 190 is centered on the "Awareness and Control" during the "sensitive periods." What isn't said is, of course, "What happens when there is a lack of stimulation and development during these 'sensitive periods?'" Is development that much slower and more arduous once the period has passed? And are there sensitive periods beyond school age? Can certain experiences generate a sensitive period? I'd love to hear what you all think about these questions.
By focusing on the activity of abstraction, of generalization, we dig beneath the appearance level to the essential level. It is the hierarchical nature of the conceptual system that allows people to both live in the world and, to some degree, to understand each other. If we only had concepts which related directly to single objects, every experience would be unique and hence, unexplainable. While Vygotsky focuses on "science," any conceptual system makes use of hierarchy and generalization. Overgeneralization (stereotyping) can be dysfunctional, as can generalization based on false premises, but that does not, truthfully cannot, invalidate the need of generalizations to reflection and consciousness. "The scientific concept, thus, stands in a different relation to the object, in a relation achievable only in conceptual form, which, in its turn, is possible only through a system of concepts." (173)Holy dependent clauses, LevMan! Substitute "literate" for "scientific," and try that one out.
On page 181, he expounds that "Our studies show that it is the abstract quality of written language that is the main stumbling block." While prior to our transitional/digital age, this means it is the translation of inner speech into a new system that is the hard part. Prior practice with other methods of abstraction and non-indicative symbols would seem to me likely to ease this difficulty (i.e. Any activity that involves consciousness of consciousness, like tactical games or abstract art should have a beneficial effect on the process of writing).
And now, the explanation of my title. "Inner speech works with semantics, not phonetics." (244) Analogously, it doesn't work with inscribed symbols, either. Since it is so personal, so caught up in meaning, previously accepted sense, and assumptions, no wonder we can "say it in our heads" but have such difficulty getting it on paper. This is also why the titular question is so cruel. I cannot explain "what I'm thinking" in the short time it takes to ask the question, but no one that asks that questions wants a full explanation of why I was thinking about how a fight between a crocodile and a hippo would go, and all the interconnected emotions and memories that have their locus in that imaginary conflict, so my usual answer is, "Uh...nothing?"
256 "...all consciousness is connected with the development of the word." Wow. Heavy.
One last thought. Page 190 is centered on the "Awareness and Control" during the "sensitive periods." What isn't said is, of course, "What happens when there is a lack of stimulation and development during these 'sensitive periods?'" Is development that much slower and more arduous once the period has passed? And are there sensitive periods beyond school age? Can certain experiences generate a sensitive period? I'd love to hear what you all think about these questions.
The End and Back to the Beginning
I found this book difficult because of the extensive explanations of Paiget's theories that Vygotsky would only disagree with throughout his theory. Then, his vocabulary continues to confuse. But, what did I get out Vygotsky's written rhetoric of his theory examining Thought and Language?
The development of children at young ages does not follow any easy formulas. Much of a child's development has peaks and curves where the inner speech, external speech, and abstract thought all overlap but sometimes one is more important than another.
I believe because of the overlapping of scientific and everyday experience and the differences of access to socialization environments as well as their personal environments (acknowledgement of the 's' on environment)"the multifunctional nature of language"can not be separated only examined (240).
Vital growth in one area, thought,oral language, written language, academic instruction, and reflection do not happen simultaneously. Where is the child to be placed when Vygotsky addresses the instructional results from schooling as a measure of what the child knows, thinks, and experiences? The fallacy of "No Child Left Behind" teaches to measurable skills NOT the development of inner thoughts and the concept behind the skill. The task becomes more important than the personal growth.
The classic linguistic theories of signs, symbols, and meanings intertwine reflection, speech, and words with the ability to think and communicate. According to Vygotsky, "Inner speech is not the interior of external speech-it is a function in itself. It still remains speech i.e. thought connected to worlds" (249). The fluidity of words and the sequencing of words might still be lacking giving meaning to Vygotsky's "sense and meaning" but "how to put thoughts into words" becomes where you place yourself in the world and where others place you(250). Depending on the person, the place, the audience, and the situation the word may be limited to or changed by the experiences of others.
The thought and inner speech soars and becomes grounded as concrete expression for sharing in a world with other humans. Sometimes the inner speech is reflection on how to proceed into the world with others. Sometimes it becomes imagination and fanciful thought important as the child takes in new experiences of sound, vision, instruction, interrelations, and even personal reprimands. And sometimes the inner speech helps place the child confidently into the world.
How do we promote that soaring of thought for children? We need to allow the experimentation of expression! We need to provide the hearing and reading of the child's words. We need to allow for the individual growth and development that makes a child unique as well as giving the child skills to function in the world.
The development of children at young ages does not follow any easy formulas. Much of a child's development has peaks and curves where the inner speech, external speech, and abstract thought all overlap but sometimes one is more important than another.
I believe because of the overlapping of scientific and everyday experience and the differences of access to socialization environments as well as their personal environments (acknowledgement of the 's' on environment)"the multifunctional nature of language"can not be separated only examined (240).
Vital growth in one area, thought,oral language, written language, academic instruction, and reflection do not happen simultaneously. Where is the child to be placed when Vygotsky addresses the instructional results from schooling as a measure of what the child knows, thinks, and experiences? The fallacy of "No Child Left Behind" teaches to measurable skills NOT the development of inner thoughts and the concept behind the skill. The task becomes more important than the personal growth.
The classic linguistic theories of signs, symbols, and meanings intertwine reflection, speech, and words with the ability to think and communicate. According to Vygotsky, "Inner speech is not the interior of external speech-it is a function in itself. It still remains speech i.e. thought connected to worlds" (249). The fluidity of words and the sequencing of words might still be lacking giving meaning to Vygotsky's "sense and meaning" but "how to put thoughts into words" becomes where you place yourself in the world and where others place you(250). Depending on the person, the place, the audience, and the situation the word may be limited to or changed by the experiences of others.
The thought and inner speech soars and becomes grounded as concrete expression for sharing in a world with other humans. Sometimes the inner speech is reflection on how to proceed into the world with others. Sometimes it becomes imagination and fanciful thought important as the child takes in new experiences of sound, vision, instruction, interrelations, and even personal reprimands. And sometimes the inner speech helps place the child confidently into the world.
How do we promote that soaring of thought for children? We need to allow the experimentation of expression! We need to provide the hearing and reading of the child's words. We need to allow for the individual growth and development that makes a child unique as well as giving the child skills to function in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
