Vygotsky, Vygotsky, Vygotsky why oh why

Based on the discussion in class I refuse to believe that a man who was raised in confinement (but fed let’s say under a closed door) and then dropped on a desert island would die of starvation. I believe it is innate the need to survive, that need to explore and see new things and this would lead to survival. Then again, I have not conducted any research and my beliefs have been proven wrong many times in the past but if anyone knows how we can get this experiment going I would love the see the outcome.

As a teacher I made the relation to the Zone of Proximal Development, I agreed with Vygotsky’s view on ZPD as we “teach” students to grasp concepts they would not cover on their own, so we represent the skilled partner and them the learner but I think the idea that “without a group to guide you” or “knowledge of what is to be done for a given task” then a simple task as finding something to eat would not be accomplished. I think the man would even try to eat the sand, drink the sea water or eat a leaf or something but NO he would not die or would he curl up in a corner overwhelmed by his new environment? Now I have started doubting myself. Sigh!

Now to the reading - Thought and Word shook the core of my thinking with these statements–

The word without meaning is not a word but an empty sound – Using ‘BA’ as an example it is not a word but to call it an “empty sound” forces my brain into a new realm of thinking. Do you remember “if the tree falls in the jungle and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound??” Ummm yes, maybe, no, it depends on your definition of the word sound, again I am doubting myself.

Word meaning, then, is a phenomenon of both speech and intellect. Word meaning is a phenomenon of verbal thought or of the meaningful word. It is a unity of word and thought – Agreed and this is further guided by one’s culture and interactions during their developmental stages of life and how they use speech and intellect to create word meaning.

Inner speech can be distinguished from thought and definitions of inner speech and external speech clarify this– REALLY! Written speech and inner speech are monologic speech forms. Oral speech is generally dialogic -AGREED. Inner speech is called unpronounced, silent, or mute speech. In accordance with Miller’s well known definition, it is speech minus sound. BUT IS THAT REALLY SPEECH!
The Chapter says External speech is a process of transforming thought into word; it is the materialization and objectivization of thought - AGREED while Inner speech moves in the reverse direction, from without to within. It is a process that involves the evaporation of speech in thought and given the nature of this idea it is no surprise that Inner speech is among the most difficult domains of psychological research. I respect the concept of the evaporation of speech and its use in defining inner speech and the chapter's ability to force us out of that box we were once trapped in.

After this reading I am now considering a different perspective to the statement that egocentric speech passes through several stages that precede the development of inner speech. This is something I have researched as an undergraduate and to see one sentence on "inner speech" cause a review of all that I thoughts I knew is remarkable. I will most definitely need to do more reading as this is something that I believe will be very impactful to my future pre-service teachers as childhood development and the way the mind works is the key to a good education and the further survival of humanity.

I look forward to deeper discussions and further contradictions to my own thoughts, inner speech, words and meanings.