Женя (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
letnja_kisha) wrote2005-08-10 11:03 am
letnja_kisha) wrote2005-08-10 11:03 am
Entry tags:
As usual, the simplest is the most ingenious
I am reading Vygotsky's "Thought and Language" ("Мышление и речь", Лев Выготский). Here's a quote:
Wallon suggested that there is a period when a child views a word as an attribute of, rather than as a substitute for, an object... The data on children's language (supported by anthropological data) strongly suggest that for a long time to a child the word is a property, rather than the symbol of an object...
The idea is so simple, and very intuitive. I just wonder how come I didn't know about it before?
The next obvious question is how we perceive objects and their properties. Do we learn "object perception" or something like that? Is some of it pre-wired? A lot of it has to do with vision, of course, and as far as I understand, much of the vision system is innate. However, are the higher vision processes that compose whole object experiences also innate? Or are they learned? References appreciated.
Wallon suggested that there is a period when a child views a word as an attribute of, rather than as a substitute for, an object... The data on children's language (supported by anthropological data) strongly suggest that for a long time to a child the word is a property, rather than the symbol of an object...
The idea is so simple, and very intuitive. I just wonder how come I didn't know about it before?
The next obvious question is how we perceive objects and their properties. Do we learn "object perception" or something like that? Is some of it pre-wired? A lot of it has to do with vision, of course, and as far as I understand, much of the vision system is innate. However, are the higher vision processes that compose whole object experiences also innate? Or are they learned? References appreciated.