One (too obvious?) reference point this brings to mind is Augustine's famous discussion on time, where he says that if no one asks him what time is, he knows very well what it is. But were someone to ask him, he'd have no idea what to say. So what do we say: does Augustine know what time is? (Augustine's point is usually invoked in discussions of ontology or metaphysics - I bring it up here as a matter of language).

In the context of the discussion, I want to say: yes he does. He knows what time is. As we all do. But he's missing the additional skill of being able to say what it's meaning is, which requires more knowledge, something extra.

Vygotsky categorises this as the movement from word to concept:

"[A] concept is more than the sum of certain associative bonds formed by memory, more than a mere mental habit; it is a complex and genuine act of thought that cannot be taught by drilling, but can be accomplished only when the child’s mental development itself has reached the requisite level. At any age, a concept embodied in a word represents an act of generalization. But word meanings evolve. When a new word has been learned by the child, its development is barely starting; the word at first is a generalization of the most primitive type; as the child’s intellect develops, it is replaced by generalizations of a higher and higher type—a process that leads in the end to the formation of true concepts. …"

Vygotsky - Thought and Language

And this parallels the gradual internalisation of the social to the inner voice whose self-sedimentation obscures the nature of its origin. That voice being the substrate from which said concepts speak.

And this parallels the gradual internalisation of the social to the inner voice whose self-sedimentation obscures the nature of its origin. That voice being the substrate from which said concepts speak. — Baden

'Self-sedimenting of inner voice' - that sounds murky.
What do you mean by this?

As I try to imagine this process of internalizing words and their meaning, I think it more of an absorption. Part of a taking in and, at times, an unthinking usage rather than a hidden, submerged and forgotten voice.

It isn't the voice that is self-sedimenting but, for sure, it grows from one level of understanding to another. Is that what you mean ? We develop our understanding of ever more complex words or concepts from a baseline. How else could it be ?
And so, our thinking process move onwards and sideways, back to front, gets shaped and shaken about ? No self-sedimenting voice here. Or have I totally misunderstood and lost the plot.

Here's more from Vygotsky:

The relation of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a continual movement back and forth from thought to word and from word to thought. In that process the relation of thought to word undergoes changes that themselves may be regarded as development in the functional sense. Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. Every thought tends to connect something with something else, to establish a relation between things. Every thought moves, grows and develops, fulfills a function, solves a problem. This flow of thought occurs as inner movement through a series of planes. An analysis of the interaction of thought and world must begin with an investigation of the different phases and planes a thought traverses before it is embodied in words. — Vygotsky

Ah, it's eating me inside that I've not yet read Vygotsky. That said, 'concept' is perhaps what I'm looking for; what are defined are concepts; meaning is words in use. That works, I think. So: the concept of 'function' is something our three year old does not have. Nonetheless, she can, and does, mean things by words.

Or yet another revision: words don't mean things; we mean things by way of words.

Self-sedimenting of inner voice' - that sounds murky.
What do you mean by this? — Amity

Oh, I mean more or or less the gradual development of self-consciousness (viewed as self-reflexive social functioning) which occurs through the gradual internalisation of the external (the sociocultural context including language).

Via Vygotsky:

“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.”

https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-development/

Ah, it's eating me inside that I've not yet read Vygotsky. — StreetlightX

First came across him through a uni course in linguistics. Haven't read as much of him as I should have, but from what I have, I like the way he rolls.

Or yet another revision: words don't mean things; we mean things by way of words. — StreetlightX

Yes, and then become aware of the process, confusing ourselves along the way.

So these people are trying to create a division between this type of meaning and that type of meaning, without any supportive principles to show that one supposed "type" is actually different from the other. In reality, the meaning which a defined word has is no different from the meaning which a piece of art has, which is no different from the meaning which a beautiful sunset has. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :up: :up:

But if you think of "meaning" in this way, as something which is attributed to words, you would have to accept that we can use words without knowing the meaning of the words. How would we characterize this type of use then? The child gets some sort of message across to the parents, but we cannot call it "meaning", because the child doesn't know the meaning. What is the child doing? — Metaphysician Undercover

She is doing what we all have to do all the time, to a greater or lesser extent. Play the game of pointing the words (or pictures or sunsets) at what they (already, or are destined eventually to) point at. About which there obviously can be (as famously noted) "no fact of the matter". But about which we are nonetheless happy to strive to agree.

Spartan enough and general enough?

Doesn't knowing the meaning of a word really mean knowing how to use it appropriately? — T Clark

Do you see a difference between knowing how a word was used, and the act of using a word? If you associate meaning with use, then I would say that knowing the meaning of a word is knowing how the word was used. This accounts for the fact that the same word has different meaning in different instances of use. Meaning is specific to the instance of use, and knowing its meaning is knowing how it was used in that particular instance.

Knowing how to use a word appropriately is a different matter altogether. This assumes that there is a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate use. On what principles would this distinction be based? Would this be a moral issue? I don't think it's a legal issue. What sort of principles do you suggest would be used to determine appropriate use?

The little girl used it appropriately. — T Clark

What makes you think that she used the word appropriately? I think it was a lie, she really can function without her blanket. Since she didn't intend to tell a lie, yet her use of that word creates the appearance that she was lying, her usage belies her intention. Therefore I do not think the word was used appropriately. Using words in a way which is inconsistent with one's intention is deception, and deception is morally inappropriate.

But about which we are nonetheless happy to strive to agree. — bongo fury

What's this --- we are happy to strive to agree? In some instances we co-operate and truly do strive to agree, happily. But in other instances, like in the philosophy forum, we happily disagree.

Whether or not there is a "fact of the matter" appears to be completely irrelevant. Sometimes we are inclined to agree and co-operate, and other times we are inclined to disagree and be pricks in the side of the others. From where comes the strive to agree?

Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. — Vygotsky

Rubbish.

Some. Certainly. Most. Certainly. Not all. It takes pre-existing thought to learn words/language.

Using words doesn't always require thinking about using words. Answering the question of what some word or other means does. The latter is metacognitive. The former is not.

The something extra involving answering what some word or other means (meaning+) is the ability to pursue a metacognitive endeavor.

Unless I have misunderstood @StreetlightX, I think the salient question is whether someone, a child in this example, can be proficient in using words meaningfully in their appropriate contexts without necessarily being able to define the words in isolation.

That question has already been adequately answered. What more proof could anyone ask for?

I was disagreeing with...

Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. — Vygotsky

...because the author kept being referenced.

The story of the child is not at issue. The mother uses the phrase containing "function" in a way that correlates, associates, and/or otherwise connects it to the way she feels about starting the day without something. "I can't function without my coffee". The child uses it for the same reasons. The mother wants to have her coffee, and the child wants to have her blanket.

My father once said to me "Michael, behave." in a somber and serious, but not at all angry, voice. I was around three to three and a half. I answered, "I am being have". Pronounce that with a long "A" not short, as in "behave". I had drawn correlations, associations, and/or connections between being good and behaving. Being have was being good.

That wasn't parroting. It was a misuse of language, but perfectly understandable.

OK, cool, I was just clarifying that you weren't claiming that knowing how to use the word entailed having the ability to say what the word means.

Nice example too!

Rubbish.

Some. Certainly. Most. Certainly. Not all. It takes pre-existing thought to learn words/language. — creativesoul

So, it's rubbish but it's certainly mostly true? You seem to be having trouble with the concept 'rubbish'. Perhaps some thought would help. Your posts are confused strawmen based on taking one sentence out of context and mangling it.

I mean if you had even bothered looking at this on the same page:

"The relation of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a continual movement back and forth from thought to word and from word to thought"

Your whole criticism falls to pieces.

Though it should have been obvious anyway as Vygotsky said "not merely" rather than "always" in the part you quoted

My father once said to me "Michael, behave." in a somber and serious, but not at all angry, voice. I was around three to three and a half. I answered, "I am being have". Pronounce that with a long "A" not short, as in "behave". I had drawn correlations, associations, and/or connections between being good and behaving. Being have was being good.

That wasn't parroting. It was a misuse of language, but perfectly understandable. — creativesoul

So you're arguing against a behaviourist approach a la Skinner (which is thoroughly outdated and has been refuted anyway) not against Vygotsky who proposes a sociocultural approach.

I am going to follow this piece of advice, from website:

It’s important to keep in mind that theories of language acquisition are just ideas created by researchers to explain their observations. How accurate these theories are to the real world is debatable. Language acquisition is a complicated process influenced by the genetics of an individual as well as the environment they live in.

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/processing-the-environment/language/a/theories-of-the-early-stages-of-language-acquisition — Amity

Via Vygotsky:

“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). — Baden

What evidence is there of this two stage development? I doubt things are so neatly divided. 

Thanks to Fooloso4 for telling me about this.
This is a totally fascinating TED talk by Deb Roy, MIT researcher.

He chronicled the development of his son's speech. Time accelerated motion analysis from bud to blossom, if you like. But really from 'gaga' to 'water'. Real world. And mostly jargon-free.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RE4ce4mexrU

I am going to follow this piece of advice, from website: — Amity

The advice goes without saying. What it often comes down to is which theory is least inconsistent with the observable facts of language learning. For example, Skinner's behaviourist approach doesn't account for novel constructions etc.

Had a look at some of the vid. Interesting that in the minute or so I watched the speaker already used a Vygotskyian influenced term, i.e "scaffolding" and the process seems very tied to the sociocultural approach. So, thanks for the link. Will watch more and say more anon.

So, it's rubbish but it's certainly mostly true? You seem to be having trouble with the concept 'rubbish'. Perhaps some thought would help. Your posts are confused strawmen based on taking one sentence out of context and mangling it. — Baden

Whatever Baden.

:brow:

He wrote that thought comes into existence through words. No mangling needed. He's clear. He's wrong. If he meant some thought(rather than all) comes into existence through words he would have said so. He did not. His use of "merely" is to emphasize that it is not only that thought is expressed in words, but rather... that thought's very existence - the very existence of thought... comes through words. That clearly implies all thought. If I'm wrong, show me where he clearly asserts the contrary. He doesn't.

He's dead wrong, as is anyone else who believes that. It's rubbish.

I simply pointed it out. You - of all people - partake in personal attacks? Aren't you a moderator or part owner here? Someone of some importance, that much is certain.

Meh.

Just read the posts and the quotes. You're wasting our time here. And no it wasn't a personal attack any more than your comment on Vygotsky was a personal attack on him. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to handle the same.

I offered valid criticism. I received ad hom and red herring.

OK, cool, I was just clarifying that you weren't claiming that knowing how to use the word entailed having the ability to say what the word means.

Nice example too! — Janus

Thanks.

I mean if you had even bothered looking at this on the same page:

"The relation of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a continual movement back and forth from thought to word and from word to thought"

Your whole criticism falls to pieces. — Baden

What?

:brow:

Does this somehow exonerate him from saying that thought comes into existence through words?

No you didn't. You picked one sentence from a thinker you're unfamiliar with and strawmanned him on the basis of interpreting the words in that sentence for your own purposes.

What I'm asking you to do is read about the ideas of the thinker you're criticizing so at least there's something to be discussed. Here's a whole chapter, for example, specifically on thought and word. Try that for a start. And note particularly:

"... the basic methodological defect of nearly all studies of thinking and speech – that which underlies the fruitlessness of this work – is the tendency to view thought and word as two independent and isolated elements whose external unification leads to the characteristic features of verbal thinking.

We have attempted to demonstrate that those who begin with this mode of analysis are doomed to failure from the outset."

Thinking and Speech. Lev Vygotsky 1934 Chapter 7 Thought and Word

The advice goes without saying. What it often comes down to is which theory is least inconsistent with the observable facts of language learning. — Baden

True for some. But worth repeating, I think, as a reminder to self and others to be constantly aware and critical, to ask pertinent questions of 'just ideas'. Not being taken in by all of a theory just because one part seems right and agrees with how you roll.

And this parallels the gradual internalisation of the social to the inner voice whose self-sedimentation obscures the nature of its origin. That voice being the substrate from which said concepts speak. — Baden

You see this is an example of jargon. It can enrich but specialist language can also be like a secret code.
I think some philosophers sometimes use this as a blanket to obscure meaning.
Some just like to be clever with language and use it to provoke further discussion.That's fine.
They are in their comfort zone. And that can be instructive and amusing.

' I Simply Can't Function Without My Jargon ! ' :wink:

Well, writing is one of the things I do and I like to jazz things up sometimes. I've admitted before it's self-indulgent but I'd always be willing to explain what I'm on about. Pinky promise. :wink:

What are you talking about?

There's an obvious disconnect here. Are you denying what he wrote? That's a foundational premiss Baden. He wrote it. He believes it. Everything you've written in the last couple of posts supports the idea.

Show me where he says otherwise.

If any thought exists before words, he's wrong.

Anyway... the subject matter and the OP are very interesting. I just don't think it's a good idea to lean too much on that guy's offering about the origen of all thought.

I'd always be willing to explain what I'm on about. Pinky promise. :wink: — Baden

I know and appreciate that. You are a devilish angel :halo: :naughty:

In the context of the discussion, I want to say: yes he does. He knows what time is. As we all do. But he's missing the additional skill of being able to say what it's meaning is, which requires more knowledge, something extra. — StreetlightX

Do we, though? We know the experience of time passing. But it took until Einstein before time was known as part of the four spacetime dimensions. And it took a knowledge of entropy and cosmology to understand f the arrow of time (somewhat). There's a possibility that we live in a frozen block universe where all points in time exist, and the passage of time is just an experience our brains create.

But it took until Einstein before time was known as part of the four spacetime dimensions. And it took a knowledge of entropy and cosmology to understand f the arrow of time (somewhat). There's a possibility that we live in a frozen block universe where all points in time exist, and the passage of time is just an experience our brains create. — Marchesk

But this is all irrelavent to knowing the meaning of the word 'time', when used in most circusmtances. Certainly, it was all irrelavent to Augustine, and did not compromise his ability to use the word properly in conversation.