International and Global, Interdisciplinary and Theoretical

[kellogg]

This is an experimental inquiry. But it’s not just an experimental inquiry. Why not?

Ms. Bak says: 생각과 말의 내젹 관계의 문제는 연구되지 않은 새로운 영역이기 때문에 실험적 탐구 외의 새로운 독창적인 연구 방법이 필요하다.

The inquiry is a new study in psychology so that it needs beyond experimental, interdisciplinary way to resolve.

Good. Notice that Ms. Bak goes considerably beyond Vygotsky. Vygotsky just says that there have to be new methods. But Ms. Yeom says the methods have to be inter-disciplinary and even GO BEYOND interdisciplinary methods.

But Ms. Bak is RIGHT. Of course she is. The study of "thinking" is one discipline, namely psychology. And the study of "speech" is a completely different one, namely linguistics. So that little word "and" in "Thinking and Speech" means that Ms. Bak is right, and Vygotsky will have to be interdisciplinary.

But why will it go BEYOND being interdisciplinary? Let's see.

2. They are theoretical and critical analysis.

Right! In addition to the critical analysis (see Ms. Yi Miyeong's comments on "Four Genetic Accounts" to see who Vygotsky's criticizing) there is going to be some THEORETICAL analysis.

In other words, Vygotsky is going to go beyond trying to tie psychology and linguistics together and produce some kind of "theory" to which both psychology and linguistics belong.

When two separate countries have a relationship, we call it "international". But when those two countries belong to some LARGER unit, we call it "global" or "world". Ms. Bak is saying that the relationship between "thinking and speech" is going to be more like globalism than like internationalism.

She's RIGHT.

3. Theoretical analysis consists of five fingers which are functional (psychological) structural (linguistic) and genetic research.

In genetic aspects, the relation of thinking and speech is considered in phylogenetic, sociogenetic, ontogenetic ways.

Good. Ms. Yeom really gives us THREE fingers (functionalism, structuralism, and geneticism) and then she has three sub-fingers on the last finger (phylogenesis, or evolution; sociogenesis, or history; and ontogenesis, or child development).

That's a good way to put it. It's very orderly, and I think it's true. In fact, we can say that geneticism is really the EXPLANATION of functionalism, and functionalism the EXPLANATION of structure.

Minds and brains have the structure that they have because they DO what they DO. And they DO what they DO because of the way they have developed, historically changed, and biologically evolved.

That's pretty good! And I think it's very true. But of course it's not EXACTLY what Vygotsky said. Here's what he really said:

Besides experimental studies we unavoidably had to turn to a theoretical and to a critical study.

OK--so we are going to have two hands, a theoretical left hand and a critical right hand. Let's try the left hand first. Pay CAREFUL attention to the little word "and".

 On the one hand, we had the prospect of theoretical analysis and generalization of the large quantities of factual material accumulated in psychology and  the comparison and collation of the data provided by phylogenesis and ontogenesis

a) theoretical analysis and generalization of facts (psychology)

b) comparison and collation of data (biology and child development)

But what is all this for? Let's find out:

in order to outline a starting point for the solution of our problem and to develop the initial prerequisites for independently obtaining scientific facts in the form of a general inquiry into the genetic roots of thinking and speech.

c) outlining the starting point of the problem (Chapter Four, of course!)

d) developing the prerequisites for getting more data (Chapter Five and Chapter Six, of course)

And what is all of THAT getting ready for?

e) a general inquiry into the genetic roots of thinking and speech (Chapter Four? Possibly Chapter Seven?)

Critical analysis is about immanent critique of J. Piaget and W. Stern.

Piaget: : 자폐적 생각 →자기중심적 말→사회화된 말

Vygotsky: : 사회적 말→ 자기중심적 말→ 내적인 말

Good. Now, you can see that Piaget and Vygotsky are giving almost the same stages--but in a very different order! The question is not really who is right and who is wrong, but what CAUSES what? Does self-directed egocentric speech "cause" social speech? Or does it cause "inner speech"? And what IS "inner speech"? Is it a form of thinking or a form of speech?

To go back to Ms. Hong's posting (see "Tokkaebi Questions!") is 혼잣말 a form of thinking or a form of speech? And what about READING? Is it thinking or speech?

Stern: 인격→말

Vygotsky: 말→인격

Yes, that's a good way to put it. Once again,w e need to ask, what CAUSES what? Does personality cause speech? Microgenetically, perhaps. But ontogenetically? Does speech cause personality? Microgenetically or ontogenetically?

I hanven't finished the book yet, it can be modified later.

See you!

See you, J-Kitty! (Right?)

[kellogg]

Oh, no! You are really J-the-Belle, who loves her father and says "Let my father go and I'll dance with you!" (Notice the masterful use of "and" to realize the conditional function, everybody!)

[jihye]

Yes I'm Ms. Bak. (Ji Hye Bak) I'm not Ms. Yeom and J kitty either.
Thanks for your comments. The book makes me do a lot of thinking. ㅎㅎㅎ