Вы не знаете, что это "семический анализ"?

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

"Мы говорили уже, что первой и основной формой
нашего исследования является анализ высших
форм поведения; но положение в современной
психологии таково, что, прежде чем подойти к
анализу проблем, перед нами встает проблема
самого анализа" (Л.С. Выготский, 1931*)

* = История развития высших психических функций - Глава третья. 


Пожалуйста,

In some inner meetings of Vygotsky's group, around 1932-33-34, there was an interesting claim from him about methodological problem of the analysis: "Семический анализ есть единственный адекватный метод изучения системного и смыслового строения сознания" = something like: "[Semicheskii] analysis is the only adequate method for the study of the systemic and [smyslovoe] structure [or construction (?) = stroenie]" of consciousness" ("The Problem of Consciousness" - Collected Works - Volume I - this text was published before as: Л.С.ВЫГОТСКИЙ. Проблема сознания. Запись основных положений доклада 5.12.32 - Психология грамматики. Под редакцией А. А. Леонтьева и Т. В. Рябовой. 1968. - we here had a copy provide by Nikolai Veresov).

Well, in my Portuguese version I have a great problem not exactly because "stroenie" translation as "structure" - spite the word is not "struktura" - but mainly with "semicheskii" that was translated as "semiotic" and Vygotsky's word was not "semioticheskii" - French version translate the same "semitcheskii" has "sémantique" - but this is not so comfortable too, because "smyslovoe" in Portuguese was transformed in "semantic" too. But there is "semantika" and "semanticheskii" in Russian too, at least in present time. I don't know about actual familiarity of Vygotsky with terms such as "semiotics", "semantics", and so on, at that time...

How can we better translate "semicheskii analiz" today? Or, even better: by what methodological means did somebody actually proceed that kind of so important analysis, at that times? To what methodology Vygotsky concretely refereed with the term "semicheskii analiz" ("the only adequate method for the study of the systemic and "semantic" [smyslovoe] "construction" [stroenie] of consciousness")? -- The only title in Russian around this matter that in find in Google search was: Аснин, В. И. & Запорожец, А. В. (1935). Семический анализ языковых значений, усвоенных в школе. Сборник исследований харьковской группы; не был опубликован - something like Asnin, V.I & Zaporozhets, A.V. (1935) Semicheskii analysis of linguistic (?) meanings, adopted in school. Collection of investigations of Kharkov's group. ---> but this was not published...

Can I suppose that not only Vygotsky believed that "semicheskii analysis" was important, but even some people apply it in empirical research? Ow, sure... I can found many entries to "semic analysis" in contemporary semiotic studies, but seems to be no much in a "genetic" approach like is useful to Vygotsky's studies... A "sema" (сема) is "a unity of  the linguistic meaning", but current "semic analysis" seems to give no much importance to the developing character o meaning (and sense). Therefore I am very limited in choice an adequate translation, and even more limited in understand the actual concept... "semiotic analysis"(?), "analyse sémantique"(?), "semic analysis"(?) - this was not any kind of "concept formation" study, was it?

In addition I can say to you that I feel this is a methodological subject matter related to the very important question of the "textual analysis" – that is a necessary resource to study the own Vygotsky's and other Soviet/Russian relevant works in history of psychology... Can we find some kind of vygotskian methodology to study the meaning of the own vygotskian texts, for instance? I can remember that “semitcheskii analysis” perhaps could be nowadays related with studies in “Translation theory”, like Sirovatkin*, for instance… around the concept of “semicheskii akt”, quoted by A.A. Khudiakov:

«Одним из центральных в теории Сыроваткина является понятие семического акта, т.е., по существу, акта конструирования сентенционального знака. Последний обладает - и в этом мы склонны согласиться с автором – двумя модусами бытия: семиотическим и актуальным. С семиотической точки зрения знак рассматривается как элемент семиотической системы языка, а с актуальной – как всякий раз неповторимый и не воспроизводимый семический акт, происходящий в необратимом промежутке времени, и уже потому обладающий свойством уникальности: “о повторении семического акта в принципе не может быть речи, повторённый семический акт – это уже другой семический акт” [там же, 42]. Знак как часть семиотической системы (устойчивой, стабильной, в известной мере статичной, застывшей) – это не совсем то, что знак, как семический акт (высказывание). В последнем случае он, сохраняя системные свойства, приобретает некоторые новые, окказиональные, обусловленные спецификой конкретного речевого акта. В данном случае, по-видимому, имеет место дискурсивное приращение окказиональных смыслов к узуальным языковым значениям знаков и даже их трансформация, модификация и т.п. Эта двойная трактовка статуса знака позволяет Сыроваткину различать соответственно две лингвосемиотические дисциплины – лингвосемиотику языка и лингвосемиотику речи [там же, 25].»**

* = Сыроваткин С.Н. Теория перевода в аспекте функциональной лингвосемиотики. – Калинин: Изд-во Калининского гос. ун-та, 1978.

** = А. А. Худяков Сентенциональный уровень языка в свете теории семиозиса. Образование и культура Северо-Запада России. Вып.6. 2001.

What do you think?

Excuse me about naiveness of questions. Thank you very much.

Большое спасибо.

Achilles.

Comments

[ipain.livejournal.com]

hey achilles, the sentence you've quoted is from second conclusions. after first conclusions, there is a part dedicated to семический анализ (starts on page 50 in Veresov's articles collection or here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-consciousness.htm) - part 5.1): Семически[й] анализ в узком смысле. it explains pretty well what lsv meant (study of development of meaning). also in the next chapter, семантический is substituted for семический, so it is interchangeable somewhat, and the term probably was tried to be used to differentiate from approaches where meanings are just stable enciclopedic entries.

строение is structure, but again with the same accent on developing/building/constructing/becoming - not imminent.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh. Thank you Ipain, I was wrote before read your note... Thank you very much. I will see the link. And you see some "semantic" difference between "строение" and "структура"?

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Oh. Thank you Ipain, I was wrote before read your note... Thank you very much. I will see the link. And you see some "semantic" difference between "строение" and "структура"?

[ipain.livejournal.com]

строение is surely different from структура, one builds строение (has a history) or one has структура (has a state).

Thank you again.

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

This is very important to us, when we translate something, because in Portuguese the lexical distinction has been erased. I will try to mark in commas: structure (stroenie) and structure (struktura)... I have to note even that Vygotsky differentiate just "семитческий анализ" to understand human consciousness and "структурный метод" as "адекватный метод исследования животного сознания"...

Ещё раз, спасибо!

Re: Thank you again.

[ipain.livejournal.com]

well, it has been erased in russian too. i say 'структура предметного действия' and understand it as 'структуризация предметного действия' =строение as a process of building smth. but noone use строение now, may be wrongly.

Re: Thank you again.

[ipain.livejournal.com]

in general, all psychic terms which are nouns must be treated as verbs in lsv school.

btw, musings about animals are very weak looking from today.

Re: Thank you again.

[nemo-nostrum.livejournal.com]

RE all psychic terms which are nouns must be treated as verbs in lsv school--

Good point! This is what we experience when we deal, for instance, with one of the favourite research topics in Vygotskian tradition, i.e. memory (Zankov, Leontiev-père, P. Zinchenko, Smirnov, the famous Istomina, a bunch of Zankov's and Leontiev's--and later, Zinchenko's and Smirnov's--students).

Thus, I recall the difficulties that we had translating Vygotskian studies on memory to the guys brought up in academic tradition of memory research in the West: perhaps, the most characteristic example is P.I. Zinchenko's research and 1961 book on involuntary (or, ironically, "incidental") memory (his doctoral dissertation, btw) that in fact is titled "Involuntary Remembering". The difference is so crucial that one needs to write yet another book, in English, explaining why this is not mere "terminological whim" of the author and why exactly the difference between the two is so important.

However, I would not be so sure that all psychic terms which are nouns should be understood as verbs (or rather as processes). I am not ready to reflect on this right now, but am just expressing my reservation, at this point...

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Ok...

I read 5.1 again, I understand that Vygotsky had a developmental, processual, dynamic, approach to meaning, and therefore the same requisites to the study of meaning or "семический анализ"... I only was concerned to contemporary denomination, because "semic analisis" in the West is not something so interesting... And "semanticheskii" crossing with "L.S. Vygotsky" in Russian, I was not trying yet. There are more problems to me, and in Portuguese and Spanish, in general, because "смысловое" is translated as "semantic" too... A "semantic analysis" to explain the "semantic structure", here sounds something tautological... But, theoretically, can we understand that we must analyses "meaning" to comprehend systemic and "sense-type" structure of consciousness? There was not a distinction between sense (смысл) and meaning (значене) in 1934, chapter 7 "мысль и слово" (Polan originated) that allow us to think that "sense" is broader than "meaning" (sense->world view->personality)? But this is interesting, because meaning can be not the broadest process, but from it we can perhaps understand the entire system... Can I think so?

Thank you again.

[ipain.livejournal.com]

contemporary denominations and translations are mostly wrong. one should not rely on them. it is a very bad situation, but thats how it is right now.

i would forget 'meaning' as a term. there is no use for it anymore. смысл шире значения и входит в него.

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

“смысл шире значения и входит в него”
— Да, вы правы.
И значение тоже входит в знаке?

[ipain.livejournal.com]

its not me, its vygotsky (same text, page 57).

i would not use term значение if possible, but if we go back in time, then значение prob is not connected to sign from lsv perspective. one has to build that connection, make personal sense (личностный смысл) from a common reference (значение). lets say, when a meaning becomes so diluted to become sense, a sign is internalized.

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes...

You make me remember that I read this utterance in Portuguese... I was guessing it was a paraphrase of you - Then I said "You are right" - because was not remembering. :-) This is a powerful dialectical idea...

Vygotsky had said too: “Важно значение, а не знак. Переменим знак, сохраним значение.” -- but I understand that words choice is not actually totally indifferent to making sense process... What do you think?

Of course, the own social relation, dialogical process, give new creative conditions to say the same word in ever changing senses... But words have a social history too, do not have?

I am very suspect in making this consideration, because English words have not exactly an "ancient history" in my life, no way... :-) But I think Vygotsky himself said something about words history, and Mikhail Bakhtin had some affirmation about that signs can not be completely "arbitrary" or "neutral"...

This is a problem to "semanticheskii analiz" too, who knows?
.

[ipain.livejournal.com]

sure it is. i was also thinking about bakhtin when answering to u, they both are talking about 'real-time' 'real-life' analyses. they just didnt have a language yet to make themselves clear.

words do have social history, and thats exactly what we are discussing now. when vygotsky talks about gestalt psychology in this text - he quotes kurt lewin. it is bakhtin conception of 'чужая речь' which works for me here. семический was a great try to explain, just didn't work.

Извините за беспокойство

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Завершнева* (2007) говорила что: «Этот термин [семический анализ] Л.С. Выготского в настоящее время передается термином “семантический” или “психосемантический анализ” (примечание 7)».

И тоже что:

«(...) Выготский критикует Леонтьева за потерю центра исследования и стихийность. Шаг в сторону, который совершает Леонтьев, для него не только отход от общей цели — теории сознания, но и шаг назад, к пофункциональному анализу, который доминировал в школе Выготского в 1928— 1931 годах [36]. (...)»

36 = «В другой заметке “NB! А.Н.” Выготский пишет о Леонтьеве (пункт отмечен знаком “!!!!!!”), что он “смотрит назад, не делает шага решительного вперед к новой ступени работы — к семическому анализу. — Что значит значение действия?”»

Но я не знаю где этa «зметка “NB! А.Н.”».

* = Е. ЗАВЕРШНЕВА «Путь к свободе» (К публикации материалов из семейного архива Л.С. Выготского) Опубликовано в журнале: «НЛО» 2007, №85 (Posted by Nemo, in the topic about Mecacci).

* * *

It's not so easy to me accept that two different words (in different historical times) have exactly the same meaning, even when one and the same word have many different meanings, space and time dependent, social situation and/or dialogical contexts dependent… But I must consider that in Vygotsky’s times “semanticheskii” was not so common, therefore. And about “semiotics”? I remain something confused, because in Moris terminology, “semantics” refers to relation of sign with objects, and the relation of sign with meaning is called “pragmatics” (sign with sign, called “syntaxes”, etc.) – then a “semiotic analisys” could be broader than a “semantic” one… Even more if we consider the meaning (значение) as a "internal structure of sign operation" (внутренняя структура знаковой операции - Проблема сознания - с. 187) not exactly as "the object" to witch sign refers (the classic "semantic" problem). I understand that I was thinking in not corrected terms. Then I will try to search for crossing “semanticheski/psychosemanticheskii analiz” and “Vygotski”…

Извините за беспокойство
Большое спасибо

Achilles.

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[ipain.livejournal.com]

no worries and no trouble, thank u for making me reread this great text.

here is the problem. vygotsky did talk about 'semantic analyses', but he meant nothing of the kind linguists had or has. it is not about signs, it is about вещи (see formula: человек-вещь-человек). вещи are also signs, and signs sometimes вещи. 'структура знаковой операции' become 'структура предметного действия': that meaning vygotsky was trying to express and scorn leontiev for not getting it. today, i would start to explain it thru discursive psychology terms.

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Очень интересно!!!
:-)

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[ipain.livejournal.com]

i was reading this (http://iph.ras.ru/uplfile//logic/log11/Li_11_Biryukov_Biryukova.pdf), when i saw your post. Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement - says wittgenstein, общение требует обобщения - says vygotsky. now, thats interesting. =)

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

ha-ha!
Выготский и Витгенштейн были шахматисты с словами! И вы тоже. :-)
До свидания.

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[ipain.livejournal.com]

шахматы is a trivial game today, we are much more advance =)

Re: Извините за беспокойство

[nemo-nostrum.livejournal.com]

I've never cared much about Wittgenstein (I am ready to admit--quite erroneously,--but anyway...), but as you might know I do care about the history and the mechanics of international contacts. Never knew about W's visit to the Soviet Union.

That is to say--thanks for the ref (http://iph.ras.ru/uplfile//logic/log11/Li_11_Biryukov_Biryukova.pdf), very interesting stuff!

I capitulate...

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

This was what I find in 1934’s version of “Thinking and speech” for words began with “sema_” (сема_)... Search engine can be not 100% because possible OCR incorrections at the actual source recognition, an so on… But, for a while, I find 42 entries for “sema_”… Only 2 entries to “Semasiological”( see “*” in the list bellow)… Actually: “Funktsiia semasiologicheskaia” (cap. 5 – item XIV , p. 145) and “semasiologia” (cap. 7, p. 263). The other 40 entries are related to “semantics”… I could not see more intensively, but seems that Vygotsky talked about “semanticheskii analiz” only once. “Это изменение смысла слова мы могли установить как основной факт при семантическом анализе речи.” (cap. 6 – p. 305.) Even more I could see that “semicheskii analiz”, nor "semitcheskii anything" did not appear in “Thinking and speech”… Well, I capitulate. And I guess that I returned to the starting point: how can we do something like a “semanticheskii analiz”? :-)

And about Zaporozhets e Asnin studies?


LIST OF WORDS WITH "SEMA_" AT "THINKING AND SPEECH" (1934 version):


01 - (cap. 1 - p 008)... семантической стон языка...
02 - (cap. 1 - p 008)... классической семантики и фонетик...
03 - (cap. 1 - p 010)... метод семантического анализа...
* 04 - (cap. 5 - p 145)... функция СЕМАСИОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ, осмысливающая...
05 - (cap. 6 - p 178)... всю семантическую сторону...
06 - (cap. 6 - p 179)... именна семантическая...
07 - (cap. 6 - p 180)... на семантику родной речи...
08 - (cap. 6 - p 210)... наконец семантический строй
09 - (cap. 6 - p 210)... произвольной семантикой стророна...
10 - (cap. 6 - p 236)... пониятий - семантическая
11 - (cap. 6 - p 236)... и семантической стороной...
12 - (cap. 6 - p 236)... и семантической стороны...
13 - (cap. 6 - p 236)... развивать семантику речи...
14 - (cap. 7 - p 237)... с семантической стопоны...
* 15 - (cap. 7 - p 263)... е. СЕМАСИОЛОГИЯ, усвоив ассоциационную концепцию слов...
16 - (cap. 7 - p 263)... значением, семантика не могла...
17 - (cap. 7 - p 269)... смысловая, семантическая сторона речи и...
18 - (cap. 7 - p 269)... в семантической и в фазической стороне речи...
19 - (cap. 7 - p 270)... семантической стопоны речи ребенок начинает с целого...
20 - (cap. 7 - p 270)... развитии семантической и фазической стороны речи...
21 - (cap. 7 - p 271)... движения семантической и фазической стороны слова...
22 - (cap. 7 - p 271)... несовпадение семантической и фазической стороны речи...
23 - (cap. 7 - p 272)... ударение, семантическая функця...
24 - (cap. 7 - p 272)... ее семантический строй...
25 - (cap. 7 - p 272)... в семантике, дахе в римике, метрике и мызике...
26 - (cap. 7 - p 273)... и семантической стороны речи...
27 - (cap. 7 - p 274)... и семантическая сторона речи не совпадают
28 - (cap. 7 - p 274)... как семантический синтаксис...
29 - (cap. 7 - p 274)... не семантику и фонологю не дано сразу...
30 - (cap. 7 - p 275)... отношение семантической и фазической стороны речи...
31 - (cap. 7 - p 275)... в семантической структуре слова...
32 - (cap. 7 - p 276)... семантический план речи...
33 - (cap. 7 - p 304)... отнощением семантической...
34 - (cap. 7 - p 305)... премущественно семантикой, но не фонетикой речи
35 - (cap. 7 - p 305)... своебразном семантическом строе внутренней речи...
36 - (cap. 7 - p 305)... осбенности семантик внутренней речи?...
37 - (cap. 7 - p 305)... при семантической анализе речи...
38 - (cap. 7 - p 307)... особенности семантики внутренней речи...
39 - (cap. 7 - p 308)... особенностей семантики внутренней речи...
40 - (cap. 7 - p 309)... особый семантический строй...
41 - (cap. 7 - p 310)... семантики внутренней речи
42 - (cap. 7 - p 310)... аггютинации семантических ениниц....

If my sources are correct (Minick and Lifanova), and/or I read well, Chapter 1 was wrote/finished in 1934; the chapter 5 in 1931; the 6 in 1933-34; and 7 in 1934. There was that term "semanticheskii" in the chapters 3 and 4, from 1929. But chapter 2 was from 1932, (about Piaget)... and did not mention that terms too. Nothing relevant, of course, but maybe curious...

Thank you...

Re: I capitulate...

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

Errata:
.
Not: "There was that term "semanticheskii" in the chapters 3 and 4, from 1929."
But: "There was NOT that term "semanticheskii" in the chapters 3 and 4, from 1929."

Re: I capitulate...

[nemo-nostrum.livejournal.com]

RE: Zaporozhets e Asnin studies

Some references to "semicheskij analiz" you will be able to find in several recent papers on the history of the "Kharkov school", I believe you know where to find them :)

Then, another ref of interest can be found in Luria's last letter to Wertheimer of 1936, where he described his research program at that time. The letter, originally in German, was published in English in King & Wertheimer-jr. 2006 (?) book on Max Wertheimer, or, in Russian translation from English (along with the English translation of King and Wertheimer), in the "Kharkov school" Russian paper on the period of 1931-1936 (in Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya).

Any questions, so far?..

Yet, the problem remains: we still do not know what exactly was meant by this kind of analysis. In addition, we can not be sure that what Vygotsky used the terms in the same very sense :) as his Kharkov and Moscow colleagues did. An interesting topic to explore anyway. Thanks for raising this issue of utmost importance!

Re: I capitulate...

[achilles-brazil.livejournal.com]

I would wish applicate any kind of "semicheskii analiz" and/or "polisemicheskii analiz" to some Russian/Portuguese translations problems in future (maybe a far future, but I wish that any future could exist)... Do you think this can be possible Vygotsky and "Translation Theory"?

But you didn't say nothing about "semicheskii analysis" and "textual analysis" yet... Must I suffer much more before you give the clues or I must learn to be more самостоятельный that I am? :-)