Article
Salmina N.G., Zvonova E.V. (2018). Development of symbolic function in the concept of dialogue of cultures. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, 2, 24-39
Abstract
Relevance. On the course of the history human development is attended by and is determined by development of sing and symbolic systems, cultural codes of different languages. Modern civilization dictates the necessity of active intercultural exchange.
Objective. Analyzing the problem of exploring the development of symbolic function being achieved as unity of affective (emotional, “personally experienced”) and cognitive (intellectual, “subjective and knowledgeable”).
Methods. Theoretical analysis of cultural typology presented by B.S. Bibler; structural and content analysis of the world image as a generalized construction of the social realm representativity in the human mind; objective and analytical approach to studying artifacts as social interaction mediated results.
Results. We substantiated the symbolic function as an individual mechanism implemented in culturally determined representation systems necessary for the emergence of interaction between individuals and for learning social implications. Studying the symbolic function presupposes analyzing those cultures where sign and symbolic means are created. Sign and symbolic means as cultural codes mediate human development and, at the same time, determine it. Signs and their systems being used in practical activity record achievements of human experience and allow creation of “cultural artifacts”.
Conclusions. The image of the world is represented in the culture, and cultural types indicate different images of the world in people belonging to those cultures. The structure of artifacts implements the function of the world image: representation of the structure, its logical links, and a set of tools for mediation in their symbolic role as well as the possible form of experiencing. Symbolic function is actively developed while learning. The content of polycultureeducation is focused learning of sign and symbolic systems’ principles creation and functioning. Instruments of activity themselves are considered as primary artifacts, and secondary artifacts are the rules of primary artifacts use.
Sections: Review, analytical studies;
Received: 04/02/2018Accepted: 04/20/2018
Pages: 24-39
DOI: 10.11621/vsp.2018.02.24
Keywords: image of the world; culture; sign; symbol; symbolic function; artifact;
Available Online 20.06.2018
References:
Artem'eva, E.Yu. (1980). Psihologiya sub"ektivnoj semantiki[Psychology of subjective semantics]. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta.
Asmolov, A.G., Burmenskaya, G.V., Volodarskaya, I.A. et al. (2011). Proektirovanie universal'nyh uchebnyh dejstvij v starshej shkole // Nacional'nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal[National Psychological Journal], 1(5), 104—110.
Asmolov, A.G. (2014, ed.). Kak proektirovat' universal'nye uchebnye dejstviya v nachal'noj shkole: ot dejstviya k mysli: Posobie dlya uchitelya[How to design universal teaching activities in primary school: from action to thought: Teacher's Manual]. Moscow: Ventana-Graf; Prosveshchenie.
Bibler, V.S. (1990). Ot naukoucheniya — k logike kul'tury: Dva filosofskih vvedeniya v dvadcat' pervyj vek [From the teaching of science to the logic of culture: Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century]. Moscow: Politizdat.
Cole, M., Göncü, A., Vadeboncoeur, J.A. (2014). Experience, imagination, and action: Versions of artifact mediation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 4, 275—279.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.958929
Seiler Th.В., Wannenmacher W. (1983, eds.). Concept of development and the development of word meaning. Berlin, etc.: Springer-Verlag.
D’Andrade, R.G. (2003). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davydov, V.V. (1995). O ponyatii razvivayushchego obucheniya. In Davydov V.V. O ponyatii razvivayushchego obucheniya: sbornik statej[On the concept of developmental learning: a collection of articles] (pp. 8—46). Tomsk: Peleng.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: Analyzing the work of general practitioners. In S. Chaiklin, J. Lave (eds.) Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context(pp. 64—103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gal'perin, P.Ya. (2002). Lekcii po psihologii[Lectures on Psychology] / Ed. and preface by A.I. Podol'sky. Moscow: Knizhnyj dom «Universitet»: Vysshaya shkola.
Karpov, Yu.V. (2014). Vygotsky for educators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588318
Kassirer, E. (1998). Izbrannoe: Opyt o cheloveke[Selected: Experience about a person]. Moscow: Gardariki.
Kassirer, E. (2006). Poznanie i dejstvitel'nost'. Ponyatie substancii i ponyatie funkcii[Cognition and reality. The concept of a substance and the concept of a function]. Moscow: Gnozis.
Kassirer, E. (2011). Filosofiya simvolicheskih form: V 3 t. T. 3: Fenomenologiya poznaniya[Philosophy of symbolic forms: in 3 v. Vol. 3: Phenomenology of cognition]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt.
Kurganov, S.Yu. (1989). Rebenok i vzroslyj v uchebnom dialoge: Kniga dlya uchitelya[A child and an adult in the educational dialogue: A book for the teacher]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.
Leontiev, A.N. (1977). Deyatel'nost'. Soznanie. Lichnost'[Activity. Consciousness. Personality]. Moscow: Politizdat.
Leontiev, A.N. (1979). Psihologiya obraza. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 14. Psihologiya[Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 2, 3—13.
Luria, A.R. (1976). Cognitive development. Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Petukhov, V.V. (1984). Obraz mira i psihologicheskoe izuchenie myshleniya. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 14. Psihologiya[Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 4, 13—20.
Piazhe, Zh. (2003). Psihologiya intellekta[Psychology of Intelligence]. St. Petersburg: Piter.
Rubtsov, V.V., Margolis, A.A., Guruzhapov, V.A. (1996). Kul'turno-istoricheskij tip shkoly (proekt razrabotki). Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie[Psychological Science and Education], 4, 79—93.
Salmina, N.G. (1988). Znak i simvol v obuchenii[Sign and symbol in training]. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta.
Salmina, N.G. (2013). My zhivem v mire simvoliki. Sovremennoe doshkol'noe obrazovanie. Teoriya i praktika[Modern preschool education. Theory and practice], 10, 28—32.
Shweder, R.A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smirnov, S.D. (1981). Mir obrazov i obraz mira. Vestnik Moskovskogo univetsiteta. Ser. 14. Psihologiya[Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 2, 15—29.
Smirnov, S.D. (2016). Prognosticheskaya napravlennost' obraza mira kak osnova dinamicheskogo kontrolya neopredelennosti. Psihologicheskij zhurnal[Psychological Journal], 37, 5, 5—13.
Stetsenko, A.P. (2005). Rozhdenie soznaniya: stanovlenie znachenij na rannih etapah zhizni[The birth of consciousness: the formation of values in the early stages of life]. Moscow: CheRo.
Stetsenko, A., Wille, Ch. (2012). Kulturhistorische Schule [Cultural-historical school]. In W.F. Haug et al. (eds.) Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus(v. 8/1, pp. 378—392). Hamburg: Argument-Verlag.
Taeschner, T. (1983). The sun is feminine. A study of language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin, etc.: Springer-Verlag.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48329-5
Veraksa, A.N. (2013). Symbol as a cognitive tool. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 6, 1, 57—65.
Wartofsky, M. (1979). Perception, representations, and the forms of action: Towards an historical epistemology (written 1973). In Wartofsky M. Models: Representation and the scientific understanding(pp. 188—210). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Zinchenko, V.P., Mamardashvili, M.K. (2004). Problema ob"ektivnogo metoda v psihologii [1977]. Postneklassicheskaya psihologiya[Post-nonclassical psychology], 1, 145—151.
For citing this article:
Salmina N.G., Zvonova E.V. (2018). Development of symbolic function in the concept of dialogue of cultures. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, 2, 24-39
