Textual Innuendoe, v1.0

Ooh, OOH, OOOH! Aside from making great sandals and related products, Dr. Scholes is really easy to read, even while his material is simply jam-packed with content. And for all you LFS fans out there (don't be shy, tell us how you really feel), there's even a handy Graphic Organizer on page 7 to show the hierarchical production and consumption of texts in the English Apparatus. I really got into it, perhaps more than the good doctor intended. Here's the point that jumped up and slapped me like a badly trained massage therapist: Consumption of texts is privileged over production of texts in our "academic subculture." This just takes me all the way back to Mike Rose's experience with his graduate schooling. Reading, interpretation, and the overly broad practice of literary scholarship are all manners in which texts are seen as being consumed. Yet teaching a composition course to non-majors or aiding a writing workshop is looked at as the sanitation engineering of the educational institution (it's called hyperbole, back off).

Is this really any surprise? I, at least, in my phenomenal social insight, would expect the values of a society to be at least commonly, if not always, reflected in its ideological state apparatuses, of which the university definitely is one. Western First World society, exemplified by the U.S., is a consumer society. We seek gluttony and attempt to satiate our lack by acquiring, using, disposing. We recognize that production is a necessary thing--but only as a step towards consumption. We eat at McDonald's or Noma, drink Cristal and Thunderbird, audiovisually ingest a range of entertainment from Survivor to Broadway and only lack the Roman vomitoriums to complete our status as a cultural black hole of devouring wastefulness.

But I've apparently gone off on a rant, somewhere.

Interestingly, Scholes's (yes, that is proper use of the apostrophe. Look it up if you disagree) solution of three textual skills which can slip this cultural noose was something I was actually taught in 9th grade Civics. Of course, I remember very little content from Mr. Weeks's (it's still right, leave me be!) Civics course, at least consciously. It was the teaching/learning method of the course which has made an impressive impression upon my mental mind (put your rods and reels away; there'll be no more Engfish here).

LFS, take two:
3 areas of learning:
In Civics it was Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.
For Scholes it's Reading, Interpreting, and Criticizing.
They are the same sets of activities, and they need to go in that order.

2 practices for those areas:
Reading and Writing.

1 (hoped for) result:
Students who are capable of critical thought instead of being passively, unrefectively subordinated by the texts they are presented with. (61)

I think the band-aid can come off now. . . .

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.

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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Vygotsky's Thought and Language

Well, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I really struggled with Vygotsky. I'm not sure if it was just the really dense plethora of information, or just fighting off cold and migraines, but boy, did Vygotsky have a lot to say. Okay, end rant...

It was really interesting to read his critique of Piaget, who we very briefly covered in our linguistics class. In fact, I felt like I had to re familiarize myself with his theories besides the information Vygotsky provided. One of the parts that interested me the most was the section on egocentric speech. According to Vygotsky, "egocentric speech does not provide communication...Egocentric speech is, therefore, useless. It plays no essential role in child behavior" (29).

I felt many aspects of Vygotsky's criticism of the role of egocentric speech in child development was really insightful and just made a lot of sense. I thought the example with the child drawing the streetcar really highlighted it. Although the child did not communicate directly with the people he was upset that his pencil broke, he communicated it verbally "It's broken" but also physically through the representation of the broken streetcar in his picture. The connection between language and activity I thought was crucial, as the child was showing he understood the meaning of broken through the drawing of a streetcar. So while Piaget thought egocentric speech was something that happened when children are small (and that they would eventually grow out of) I feel this show it is an important step in development of not only verbal speech, but the consequences behind meanings of words. He may have heard the word "broken" but not had truly understood it until it happened to him. And then he showed his understanding of the word through the drawing. It reminded me a lot of our discussion from a few weeks ago and how children naturally change the verb tenses. With regards to the tenses, as a child naturally grows, the syntax he or she develops almost corrects itself. I feel the same type of idea could be seen with egocentric speech, whereas its a fuller understanding of the word because its happening to him, and he is experiencing it, even if the only communication he is having is between himself and that paper.

It would seem that egocentric speech is imperative to human being growth, as it never really leaves us, only manifests itself in a form of "inner speech" as Piaget refers to it. Vygotsky makes the argument that adults "thinking out loud" is no different than egocentric speech, and this seems like a really good observation (32). I'm pretty sure I can think of several dozens of situations where I have talked to myself out loud.

The other aspect of the egocentric speech I thought was interesting was when Vygotsky compared the schema of development, "first social, then egocentric, then inner speech--contrasts both with the traditional behaviorist schema--vocal, speech, whisper, inner speech--and with Piaget sequence--from nonverbal autistic thought through egocentric thought and speech to socialized speech and logical thinking" (35-36). Comparing all the developments of speech, thought, and language side by side when I think about all the developments we have made in discovering thought and language and the connection between, and yet how far we have to go. It almost seems to a degree, that each child may respond differently in growth, so I wonder how much of nature v. nurture plays in to the child's development..

From the very beginning of this reading I became focused on a comment Vygotsky made about the importance of developmental changes in the interrelatedness of thought and language. Once he moved on to the discussion of ontogenetics, one question permeated my thoughts throughout the reading. How does the relationship and development of the relationship between thought and language differ between individuals? The first instance that hinted at an answer was Vygotsky's claim that "development of speech creates a favorable environment for autistic thinking." (23) This seemed at first contradictory, as Vygotsky had referred to Piaget's hypothesis that autistic thought was unconscious and uncommunicative, which seems elementally incongruous with language development. Also, the idea was postulated that imagination, a large function of autistic thinking, was based on memory. Both imagination and memory rely heavily on the senses, imagery and therefore, symbols. We think of words as symbols of what they represent, but not in the sense of symbols associated with non-linguistic units of memory. However, if true, this raises the question of children whose socio-economic position has forced them into reality at an earlier age than other children, and so further away from an existence dominated by imagination; whether or not the language development of these children suffers as a result?

Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.

No answers, just more questions...

I found the first section in Vgotsky very difficult. I'm reading this thinking, "I'm an English teacher damn it. Why can't I understand this?" Then I got out my unabridged dictionary and started hunting. I was surprised to see the word "autism" used the way he did. I had a difficult time divorcing myself from thinking of autistic children each time I read that word. What does that tell you about thought and language. The idea and the word were so closely associated in my brain, that I just couldn't subconsciously separate the two. It was only when I stopped and corrected my thinking, that I could move on to try to understand the point.

What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?

Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?

On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?

I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?

On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.

After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?

Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)

We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.

On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?

Symbols and structure (aka there is no escape)

Preface: Ray is ill. He had an awesome time in Florida, then his immune system gave out. 3 words: Jenna's Jello Shots.

Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.

Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.

Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.

This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.

I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.

I think my brain needs a band-aid...

All this meditation, clarification, and metacognition as the result of reading Vygotsky has made my brain hurt. Sore, even. I've thought of so many questions, I don't know where to start. Of course, the answers may have been right before my eyes. . . but I just don’t know where. If the ego develops through external contact, how do people who are born deaf and blind think? If the cognitive process benefits from the presence of inner speech, again, how do they think? How do they communicate when inner speech (which is learned from one’s environment) doesn’t develop? How can they imprint and organize their conscious content? All the theories certainly make sense for what we consider “normal” individuals, to a certain extent, but how can they make sense when one is hearing impaired or both hearing and sight impaired? Especially when word meaning and sound is so important to thought and our thought process, how is reality perceived without the benefit of hearing? Or of seeing? Vygotsky maintains that thought and speech cannot be studied separately. But what about those individuals who for some reason cannot speak? They understand what is being said to them, but they cannot respond verbally. And, if speech movements facilitate reasoning, can people with disabilities involving hearing and/or speech reason the same as a person without such disabilities? Does the brain find a different avenue to reason, to think, to explore reality? If thought and speech unite into verbal thought, wouldn’t there have to be other possible theories of the thought and language connection (problem) for those who cannot hear and/or speak?

Enquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions and more. Of course, I understand the broader implications of Vygotsky, that environment (connected to one’s socioeconomic status) plays a huge role in a child’s development, something we have been discussing since day one. I had never actually considered, though, that a child may understand a word, but not be able (no matter how many times you explain it) to understand the adjoining concept, that it’s a matter of maturity. By the way, if I begin talking to myself out loud, am I being childish or immature? Or am I enhancing my reasoning capabilities?

And, does all of this explain how sometimes I just can’t put my thoughts into words? How I can just have a thought and not really be able to express it. You mean it’s not a sign of senility? That others have this problem, too? I’m so looking forward to our discussion!

Can’t help but wonder if I really am thinking. Or do I just think I’m thinking?

Thought is speech minus sound...

...I wish my mother would do that. No sound. Just thoughts that never come out of her mouth. I don't even want to see her email thoughts. Nothing. Ok...moving on...

So the whole process of inner speech and the roots of the mind...The whole idea that if our inner thoughts were spoken they would be unintelligible, or rather, it would not resemble language as we know it, is really intriguing. Inner speech is almost a language all its own. I would give a page number here but there are so many pages that loosely refer to this, there would be a list of pages and it seems unnecessary. Well, more in chapters one and four than in three. I read in one sitting and didn't really stop...my mind kept going with the words on the pages. So this is the idea I want to talk about-the idea that one thought is almost uninterpretable in language and has to be revised to make it understandable when it is spoken.

It's relatively often that I am talking to someone, and I am thinking of something I want to tell them. Seems simple enough. But when I try to tell them, I feel like I have to rearrange my thoughts completely in order for what I am thinking to make sense when it comes out of my mouth. I didn't realize I did this until I read these chapters and actually thought about it. If I said what I was actually thinking, Vygotsky is right--I know that my thoughts would almost sound like a cross between gibberish and English. It's like I can think of what I want to say with one or two words, but actually speaking--it's a whole different story. The person wouldn't know what I was talking about. I have to put this word or two into an intelligible English sentence. Turning thoughts into words is second nature, but I suppose when you pick each word and each thought and each process apart, it's a task that takes some...thought. But the process is so quick that nobody thinks to do that unless you are asked to read this book. I've been thinking about my thoughts. I'm not one to try to over analyze, and since I am now aware of thought, I've had trouble figuring out if I am over analyzing my own thoughts or if I'm just simply trying to analyze my process of thinking. Is it the same difference? Julie, why do you do this to me every week?

We don't think in terms of topics or subjects. Well, that what Vygotsky says. I've been trying to analyze that one, too...when I am thinking, is it a subject or is it just all expressive thought with no direct correlation to the subject of that expressive thought? I suppose not. They're just thoughts about something I read or saw or heard. I guess that's where the subject part of it ends. The thought process just picks that subject apart without any direct relation to it...I guess that would be considered redundant. Your own thoughts know what they are thinking about.

The whole idea of analyzing thinking and speaking is intriguing. It makes me wonder about the inner speech of people when I know they are trying to re-word what they are thinking before it comes out of their mouth.

Hard Reading-The Theories, The Children, The World Today

Well, Lev Vygostsky is difficult. After reading and rereading I have put him in a place of my mind.

I enjoyed the sociocultural elements of Vygostsky's psychology addressed in the updated Thought & Language title. The original Thought & Speaking title (translation limitations?)seemed to be limiting. Our society does gets bogged down with the spoken word as a sign of intelligence. The babbling of very young children to their gestures expressing needs to communication with others and finally self reflection offer a way of social interaction to progressive cognitive growth of thought and language. The words children are exposed to become meaningful through their experience. First Egocentric speech is discussed as it directly relates to self while socialized speech builds into a relations to and between self and others. "To put it quite simply, we may say that the adult thinks socially, even when he is alone, and that the child under seven thinks egocentrically, even in the society of others" (27). Experience gives meanings to words for the child. That experience is grounded in interaction with others. Today non-human and impersonal interactions are rampant in children's lives. Play has become about tasks rather than the imagination which I believe is the first step to inner thoughts.

When we address the social construct of the 21st Century, maybe we are seeing a regression where humans of all ages have regressed into egocentric speech that carries into the internal speech. The thought and language that is all about "the me". Today logic, morals, and ideals may be losing ground in the social construction thanks to wars, famines, politicians, media,inequalities, etc. The second hand experience of the news and the background sound bits for technological toys bombard children. What would be the findings in any of the studies today? Would children progress in their development or would they stagnate? Possibly the studies can be proof of what we need to do as a society to facilitate the development of thought & language.

For children with limited speech capabilities, the lack of development of external spoken words is often assumed by the community as a lacking of developmental skills. Our society places a great importance on the verbal communication often to the exclusion of the non-verbal and the shy. While the external speech requires a common reference for group understanding, internal speech can be anything you want-you could be trying to figure concepts out in your mind until you might desire to put the concepts into verbal utterances. Our society places much value on how people speak vs. how they think. We need to help those children who learn outside the accepted education.

All children can participate in the "equal realities-the world of play and the world of observation" (47). Humboldt's work with play goes beyond imagination into role-playing and acting for life. He documented the importance of play not only for the socialization of children but for the contemplation for adults. Piaget did say, "the child never really comes into contact with things because he does not work. He plays with them, or simply believes them without trying to find the truth" (55). Today the child does not always come into contact with people because things are integral to the child's world. The influences of home and pre-school (or lack of either)can not be ignored.

I believe everyone should make time for play as well as reflection. If children learn by observation and socialization, what are our responsibilities as adults?

I could not get into the chapter on animal developement. Sorry, years of Jane Goddall in Africa have tainted and tired my belief in the value of cross-over of studies of animals and humans.

The chicken or the egg

I looked through some old textbooks from my master's degree days to see what they had to say about Lev Vygotsky and his work. One book dedicated a chapter to his work and the other book mentioned him twice. I am glad that this is required reading because I really didn't know much about his own thoughts about his work. I knew some theories - like the Zone of Proximal Development, but that's about it.

So Piaget and Vygotsky don't agree on the order that speech develops. Has there been a landmark study [that, perhaps I should know but I don't] that definitively defines the order that speech and thought develops? Somebody enlighten me if one exists.

I want to focus on Vygotsky's discussion of the effects of environment on speech. "Whether the child's talk is more egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on the surrounding conditions" (Vygotsky 55). I attended a reading conference today and heard two different speakers refer to Hart and Risley landmark study of children's exposure to vocabulary. I believe we touched on this in class once before, but I'll give some additional background information about that study. In their book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley discuss their longitudinal study (lasting 2-1/2 years) involving 42 families. Each month they recorded one hour of conversation (every word uttered) between professional, working class, or welfare parents and their children. They estimate that a 3 year-old from a professional family will hear 11 million words in a year, children in working class families hear about 6 million words, and a child from a welfare family will hear only 3 million. That means that 3 years into life, some children already have an 8 million word listening vocabulary advantage over other children.

Although Vygotsky was referring to a child's spoken language and not his listening vocabulary, this would obviously have a huge impact on that as well. So, yeah, Vygotsky is right - the social aspect in a child's speech at home is huge. Hart and Risely also discovered that welfare kids heard more negative statements like, "Don't do that" or "Get the remote control" and professional children were the recipients of more positively couched statements like "Good for you" and "That's right!"

I'll bet Vygotsky would love to weigh in on the ramifications of this study in regards to the development of speech and thought. Without a doubt, the "surrounding conditions" and "social milieus" (56) DO matter.

Ong, Whorf, and the Test Craze

And now a word (or two) about Ong’s “The Orality of Language” from Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word:

I found it interesting to consider the ways in which we can never leave our literacy, such as the example Ong provides with the word nevertheless. It’s true—I cannot think of a word like that without thinking of what the word looks like. However, with nouns, I believe it’s different. I would imagine that most people who are familiar with a noun would conjure the picture in their mind. But if one is not familiar, than the brain would attempt to form the word in the mind’s eye, ready to make some connection to a picture as soon as the opportunity arises. Additionally, I found it intriguing that although we have made great technological strides by the invention of the telephone to be able to communicate using oral verbalization only, many of us insist on texting and emailing to communicate, keeping us tethered to our need for the written word. And, I just noticed as I was typing this blog, that texting is not part of acceptable grammar according to my software. And, for the record, blog also falls into that category. Is our grammar even able to keep up with our literacy?

But isn’t it interesting, though, how a great deal of meaning can get lost in written verbalization? Think about how many times you’ve received an email, not really certain of the tone or intention. Or, when you send an email, you are ever so careful to word it, because you do not want your message to be misconstrued or misjudged. Or maybe it’s just me. Anyway, this essay also made me think about poetry and song lyrics and how much is lost with just reading the words, rather than gathering all the beautiful sounds and figurative language and allowing them to blossom in your mind.

This essay tapped into a world I had not previously considered, a place where written verbalization had never existed and, thus, where those functions derived from literacy had not developed. It’s difficult to imagine a world where orality is primary, just as it would be difficult to perceive a horse having only seen or had contact with automobiles using only automobiles as the reference point (I’m such a nerd that I loved Ong’s “punnage” here). I’m not sure as a literate society that we can truly perceive a world without the written word, but I can fully appreciate that “without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials, cannot produce other beautiful and powerful creations” (14-15). But “to die to continue living” (15)? How would entering literacy create a death for those living in such a world? Friere would likely cringe at the thought.

Now onto Mr. Whorf’s thoughts in “An American Indian Model of the Universe”:

Personally, I think he could have explained the premise as he did through perhaps page 58 or even 59 and concluded that “the Hopi language gets along perfectly without tenses for its verbs” and I would have been perfectly content. I don’t think I would have missed the references to geometry, phenomena of the universe (seriously, what is a nadir—in layman’s terms?), metaphysics, manifested and manifesting as objective and subjective, the realm of expectancy, Whorf’s terminology of Hopi grammar, and some Hopi words translated to some verbose English as the message would have been delivered to me. I did find some of the discussion on the absence of Hopi words for time and space to be fascinating, especially on page 59, where Whorf describes the Hopi’s “definition” of the future. We are all connected, and this philosophy, so to speak, puts the future into a fascinating perspective.

Interestingly, I thought of Friere as I read the following on page 60: “It is the realm of expectancy, of desire and purpose, of vitalizing life, of efficient causes, of thought thinking itself out from an inner realm (the Hopian heart) into manifestation.” Isn’t this what becoming fully human is all about? I think many of us have lost this ability or perhaps it’s just the desire that’s missing. Where do I sign up for some "Hopi" training?

Imagine English without all those irritating tenses! Could it work? Could we speak without tenses? Could we write without tenses? Likely, we could speak without them because we would have other ways of communicating at our disposal. But writing without tenses? Interesting point to ponder. Could we, as a society, be less annal about time? Likely, no.

Test Craze:

I wasn’t sure whether we were to blog about the articles Julie gave us, but I did find them interesting and enlightening. I must admit, some testing is important, but I guess it’s this craze that we find nowadays in many schools is what makes teachers throw up their arms in confusion and disgust. I do know that many schools have these “test pep rallies,” and I thought they were silly when I first heard about them. During my first year of teaching, when I was a PSSA coach (and yes, my salary was funded by a grant from the state), we administered Foresight tests to our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders. Not only did I get sick of collecting the data, but the students certainly tired to taking basically the same test five times. The only way I found that truly motivated most of the students was to offer some extrinsic reward. Most of these “remedial” students could easily score proficient, but were just didn’t care. The tests were annoying and meant nothing, to them anyway. When we offered monetary and other types of rewards for score improvement, we typically got them. Only a few tried, but they just didn’t have the skills. Motivation seems to be the key, and that’s where it can get tricky. More tests and rallies are definitely not the answer, in my humble opinion. Finding a way to motivate is where it’s at, and that won’t be found in teaching to the test or in LFS.

I like the idea of "availing ourselves of such concepts" (58) when referring to our own cultural norms, in the attempt to understand concepts outside of our own social construction. It has interesting implications, not just between disparate linguistic groups, but between differing groups within the same social construct. In understanding that groups of people can conceive of time and space in opposite, yet valid, ways between cultures, we can extend that principle to people within one culture, learning that perception of the same world often results in differing views of that world.

Considering from where our concepts of our world are generated is a helpful exercise towards a goal of understanding the world of others. Whorf mentions the invalidity of intuition as a source of knowledge when discussing the Hopi concepts of space. Can knowledge really be intuitive or innate? Is anything learned outside of one's social construct. Hence the supremacy of "functional" literacy, and the literacy of dominant ideologues? Concepts of space and time are just as dependant upon one's positional culture as are religion and politics. As strongly as one may believe in the existence of past, present, and future, we see the equal existence of manifested and unmanifest. So, a Christian vehement in his or her beliefs may be equally vehement in the belief of Islam had their cultural position originated in a Muslim family.

The value humans place on the concepts that constitute their reality differ between and among cultural groups. This value system is expressed through language, naming what is important and focusing attention on what knowledge is needed for one's ability to function. The Hopi language reflects the value system and social construction of its people, as every language does for its people. One's ability to understand the value system of a particular society, use its language, and obey the social 'norms' establishes their cultural, social and functional literacy.

Can't think of a catchy title

So, let me get this straight. The Hopi essentially have no concept of time (60-61). What a wonderful culture to be part of. They must not rush to go anywhere or do anything. They all just wait for each other. Eventually, someone will show up...for something. It's their cultural literacy. I'd go crazy. My cultural literacy is time-driven. So is the cultural literacy of everyone I know. Even if they are on vacation. It's still rushed and time-driven and can potentially be unenjoyable if too much is planned. The Hopi do not question where they are, how they ended up there, or where they are headed (61). They go with the flow. I really wish I could do that. But I, along with countless others, overthink everything. What a great world they live in...no concept of time, including past, present, or future. Just hope. Interesting and scary. This must be the fear of freedom Friere was referring to.

I read the Ong chapter on the heels of having visited the urbandictionary.com website. As a side note, I have officially dubbed a teacher as Lego Hair. This means: a particularly shitty male haircut in which the sides cover the ears and the hair appears to be "snap on". Perfect. Now I can make a seamless transition to orality. I usually do not latch on to something in the reading as early as the second page, but I really connected with Saussure's definition of writing: "a compliment to oral speech." Writing is not merely expressing thoughts in words on paper. Communicating is not just talking. (7) I suppose, like I've said before, that this is one of those things that we all know, but just don't articulate often, if at all. Seeing it in writing clarifies it, for me anyway. It's all related to cultural literacy.

I thought of my grandmother's stories and Italian translations of stories and her hand motions when I read certain portions of this article. I made a Heritage scrapbook of photos and stories and family trees for her before she died while she was in a nursing home. The pages were well worn and viewed. After she died and I read the things I had written with her help, I knew that the true story was not there. No hand motions. No faces. No broken English imitations as she imitated her mother's accent, who came right from Belvedere, Italy to Ellis Island. No imitating her mother crawling down the fire escape in the No Hair story. All of that escapes in my written translation of her words. I never did ask why my great-grandmother was doing that, but anyway, her mother came down the escape and back into their Brooklyn apartment and in shocked Italian exclaimed that she saw her upstairs male neighbor through his window...naked...no hair! Anywhere! No hair no hair no hair. And she pointed to various locations on the body that needed hair. I heard the story dozens of times, laughed hysterically each time watching my short Italian grandmother get up and do the no hair no hair no hair hand gestures. I laugh when I read it, but nobody else will see what I saw when the story was told each time. We really are a culture of "orality."