



















































Overburdened & Underfunded: California Public Schools Amidst the Great Recession


http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2012.07


IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychologyVol. 1 �o. 2.

June 2012 pp. 100-126

Holbrook Mahn

University of�ewMexico

201 2 Hipatia Press

ISSN 201 4-3591

DOI: 1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.07

Abstract

Vygotsky’s work is extensive and covers many aspects of the development of

children’s meaning-making processes in social and cultural contexts. However,

his main focus is on the examination of the unification of speaking and thinking

processes. His investigation centers on the analysis of the entity created by this

unification – an internal speaking/thinking system with meaning at its center.

Despite the fact that this speaking/thinking system is at the center of Vygotsky’s

work, it remains little explored. This article relies on Vygotsky’s writings,

particularly Thinking and Speech, to describe his examination of the

speaking/thinking system. To analyze it he derives the unit – znachenie slova –

“meaning through language.” In Thinking and Speech Vygotsky describes the

origins and development of znachenie slova as a unit of the speaking/thinking

system. He also details his genetic, functional, and structural analysis of the

processes through which children internalize meaning in social interaction and

organize it in an internal, psychological system. The foundation of this system is

the child's ability to generalize by using symbolic representation in meaningful

communication. Vygotsky’s analysis of the structure of generalization in the

speaking/thinking system is central to his examination of how children make

meaning of their sociocultural worlds.

Keywords: meaning making, psychological systems, Vygotsky, methodology,

unit analysis

Vygotsky's Analysis
of Children's Meaning
Making Processes



educators and psychologists and other social scientists, but because the

concept meaning has a variety of uses reflecting different disciplines, its

meaning is often elusive. Therefore, a question is raised for educational

psychologists, “What is the nature of the concept of meaning used in

studies on children’s meaning making in classrooms?” The search for

an answer to this question comprises a substantial portion of the life

work of the Russian educational psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1 896-

1 934).

  An important aspect of Vygotsky’s analysis of children’s meaning-

making processes is his examination of the origins and development of

the human species’ ability to make and communicate meaning. He

compares it to the processes used higher primates to make meaning of

their worlds and highlights a fundamental difference – the sociocultural

world into which the child is born, including cultural practices and the

communicative use of language. Vygotsky’s examination of the

processes the individual child develops to create meaning through the

acquisition and use of language addresses the central question posed

above on the nature of children’s meaning-making processes.

  Vygotsky (1 987) makes it clear in his main work Thinking and

Speech that the central focus of his research is the examination of the

relationship between the processes used in thinking and the processes

involved in the reception and production of spoken and written speech

and their unification in rechnoi myshlenie, (literally “speech thinking").

The fact Vygotsky uses this concept to represent a psychological

process/formation/system is lost when translating it “verbal thinking.”

In spite of its centrality, Vygotsky’s analysis of the speaking/thinking

system at the center of the creation of meaning has not received as

much attention as his analyses of other concepts. This article’s purpose

is to describe the system created through the unification of speaking and

thinking processes through a precise and explicit examination of

Vygotsky’s writings on children’s meaning-making processes.

  Unlike other psychologists of his time, who examined mental

T
he ways in which children make meaning of their physical,

social, and cultural worlds and of their own cognitive and

affective processes have been studied extensively by

1 01IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



functions in isolation, Vygotsky analyzed the human psyche and

consciousness as interconnected systems and examined mental

functions as processes interrelated in systems. Internal systems of the

human psyche are based on the unity of the brain and mind and are

activated and shaped through sensuous activity and communicative

interactions in specific social situations of development. Vygotsky’s

examination of the origins and development of the speaking and

thinking processes and their unification into a system with meaning at

its core rests on the concept of the human psyche as a system of

systems. “The structure of meaning is determined by the systemic

structure of consciousness” (1 997a, p. 1 37); therefore, Vygotsky

examines “the systemic relationships and connections between the

child’s separate mental functions in development” (1 987, p. 323).

Vygotsky views the speaking/thinking system as a “unified

psychological formation” (1 987, p. 44), as a “complex mental whole”

(p. 45). The internal, dynamic relationship between thinking and

speaking processes represents a “unique and changing set of relations,”

the development of which should be viewed as “a psychological

system” (1 997a, p. 92).

  In his study of the human psyche and its systems, Vygotsky relies

heavily on Marx and Engels to develop a methodological approach that

analyzes phenomena as processes, as dynamic systems in which

unification with other processes and systems is central to development.

Vygotsky’s approach investigates a phenomenon’s origins, examines

the forces behind its development, and reveals interconnections and

interactions with its environment.

Vygotsky’s Methodological Approach

Early in his career, Vygotsky argues, in The Historical Meaning ofthe

Crisis in Psychology (1 997a), that developing a methodological

approach appropriate to the investigation of the human psyche is the

main challenge facing psychology. He articulates a goal of developing

a methodological approach to the study of consciousness that addresses

the problems inherent in the two dominant approaches to psychology of

his time: behaviorist approaches that attempt to legitimatize psychology

by adopting methodological approaches wholesale from the hard

1 02 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



sciences, and metaphysical approaches that deal exclusively with

subjective reactions and therefore do not even attempt to explain the

origins and development of human consciousness. Vygotsky describes

three key aspects to his approach: 1 ) the use of Marx and Engels’

dialectical approach; 2) analysis of complex systems by examining

interconnections with other systems; and 3) analysis using units. He

analyzes mental functions as processes in systems examining their

origins, development, and interfunctional relationships with the goal of

revealing “the unified and integral nature of the process being studied”

(1 987, p. 46). To establish his methodology for this analysis, Vygotsky

turns to the works of Marx and Engels, particularly German Ideology

(1 976) and Theses on Feuerbach (1 969), in which they describe their

methodological approach (Mahn, 201 0).

  Vygotsky’s approach incorporates the key tenet of dialectical logic

that nothing is constant but change and that all phenomena are

processes in motion. “To study something historically means to study it

in motion. Precisely this is the basic requirement of the dialectical

method” (1 997b, p. 43). To study the relationship between think and

speaking, Vygotsky examines their unique origins and initial

independent paths of development.

  Understanding the development of the thinking and speaking

processes is key to understanding the nature of their unification.

Vygotsky analyzes the dialectical relationship of thinking and speaking

processes in a “pure, independent, uncovered form” (1 997b, p. 53),

focusing times ofqualitative transformation in the relationships between

mental processes, that lead to the creation of the new mental formations,

bringing about new systems.

The internal relationships between thought and word with which

we are concerned are not primal. They are not something given

from the outset as a precondition for further development. On the

contrary, these relationships emerge and are formed only with the

historical development of human consciousness. They are not the

precondition of man’s formation but its product (1 987, p. 243).

1 03IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



Analysis of Units

In Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky reports on experimental studies he

and his colleagues conducted to analyze the unification of the thinking

and speaking processes and of “the unified psychological formation”

(1 987, p. 44) – the speaking/thinking system of meaning – that results.

After emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the

system as a whole when analyzing the unification of thinking and

speaking processes, Vygotsky poses the question: “What then is a unit

that possesses the characteristics inherent to the integral phenomenon of

rechnoi myshlenie [the speaking/thinking system] and that cannot be

further decomposed? In our view, such a unit can be found in znachenie

slova, the inner aspect of the word, its meaning” (p. 47). In partitioning

the whole into a unit, “the term ‘unit’ designates a product of analysis

that possesses all the basic characteristics ofthe whole. The unit is a

vital and irreducible part of the whole” (p. 46) that is derived through

an analysis that examines the “concrete aspects and characteristics” (p.

244) of the whole.

  During a conference with his closest collaborators in 1 933 near the

end of his life, Vygotsky clarified how he was using znachenie slova:

“Meaning is not the sum of all of the psychological operations which

stand behind the word. Meaning is something more specific – it is the

internal structure of the sign operation” (1 997a, p.1 33). However,

Vygotsky’s analysis of znachenie slova as the internal structure of the

speaking/thinking system is lost when it is translated into English as

“word meaning.” The Russian znachenie translates to “meaning” and

slova to “word,” but slova represents language as a whole, as reflected

in the sentence, “In the beginning was the word.” More accurate,

expanded renditions ofznachenie slova are “meaning through language

use” or “meaning through the use of the sign operation.” The key is that

znachenie slova reflects the essence of the internal psychical system

created by the unification of speaking/thinking processes. Meaning

communicated through language is a central aspect of znachenie slova,

but focusing on the external meanings of words and processes of

semiotic mediation without analyzing the origins and development of

their interrelationship with thinking processes overlooks what Vygotsky

1 04 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



feels is essential – that znachenie slova maintain the essence of the

internal psychical system of which it is a unit.

Analysis of Znachenie Slova

In Thinking and Speech Vygotsky presents his analysis of znachenie

slova revealing the relationship between thinking and speaking and

disclosing “the internal essence that lies behind the external appearance

of the process, its nature, its genesis” (1 997b, p. 70). He analyzes

znachenie slova from three perspectives: genetic, looking at its origins;

structural, examining the development of psychological functions and

processes and their interconnections; and functional, investigating

psychological activity and motivating factors in the speaking/thinking

system. Vygotsky looks at the development of meaning as a process,

one that is shaped by its systemic relationship with other psychical

functions, processes, structures, and systems. As a preliminary step to

the study of the unification of thinking and speaking processes and the

discovery of its qualitative and quantitative characteristics and

categories and concepts, Vygotsky argues that a first step is “an analysis

of available information on its phylogenesis and ontogenesis” (1 987, p.

40), which he does in chapters 2 and 3 in Thinking andSpeech critically

analyzing theories of Piaget and Stern on the relationship between

thinking and speaking. Then in chapter 4 he examines the “theoretical

issues concerning the genetic roots of thinking and speech” (p. 40) –

looking at the origins of symbolic representation in early humans and

comparing and contrasting human thinking processes and language use

to higher primates’ thinking and communicative abilities. These

chapters provide the foundation for Vygotsky’s analysis of the unit

znachenie slova in the last three chapters.

  In summarizing his work at the end of Thinking and Speech,

Vygotsky states: “The discovery that znachenie slova changes and

develops is our new and fundamental contribution to the theory of

thinking and speech. It is our major discovery” (1 987, p. 245). The

development of meaning is a process that has its foundation in the

infant’s physical brain and in those elementary thinking processes with

which humans are born and which develop in infancy – mechanical

1 05IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



memory, involuntary attention, perception, etc. These elementary

mental functions are shaped by the sociocultural situation into which

children are born, as well as through their interactions with others and

their environment. The development of perception, attention, and

memory leads to communication between the child and caretakers, with

the latter ascribing communicative intent to the infant’s gestures and

sounds. This early social interaction provides a foundation for the

development of children’s communicative intentionality and symbolic

representation – key elements in the acquisition of language. As

children develop, a qualitative transformation in social interaction takes

place as communication of meaning is enhanced by the development of

the ability to generalize through “the creation and the use of signs”

(1 997b, p. 55).

  Two basic functions of speech – revealing reality in a generalized way

and communicating meaning in social interaction – are important

components of Vygotsky’s speaking/thinking system. “It may be

appropriate to view znachenie slova not only as a unity ofthinking and

speech, but as a unity ofgeneralization and social interaction, a unity of

thinking and communication” (1 987, p. 49, italics in original). Vygotsky

uses generalization to refer to the mental act of abstracting from a

concrete object to develop a concept of the object in its manifold

manifestations and not to general versus local meaning.

  Understanding the potential for confusion about the significance of

meaning, and having established “the changeable nature of meaning”,

Vygotsky says, “we must begin by defining it correctly. The nature of

meaning is revealed in generalization. The basic and central feature of

any word is generalization. All words generalize” (1 987, p. 249).

It turns out that just as social interaction is impossible without

signs, it is also impossible without meaning. To communicate an

experience of some other content of consciousness to another

person, it must be related to a class or group of phenomena. As we

have pointed out, this requires generalization. Social interaction

presupposes generalization and the development of verbal

meaning; generalization becomes possible only with the

development of social interaction (1 987, p. 48).

1 06 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



  The structure of generalization that is produced through ongoing

development of the ability to generalize provides the foundation for the

internal speaking/thinking system and is revealed in Vygotsky’s

analysis of znachenie slova. Through the development of this system,

children acquire the ability to generalize and use symbolic

representation, underscoring Vygotsky’s main discovery that the

psychological nature of meaning changes.

  At the conclusion of Thinking and Speech Vygotsky writes that he

has not fully analyzed the speaking/thinking system but has only

revealed its complexity, which I have tried to capture in the figure

below. In the discussion following the diagram, I use Vygotsky’s

writings to describe the significance of the numbered items within the

diagram as well as their relationships with other aspects in the diagram.

(The numbers of each section below refer to the numbers in the

diagram.) The concept being described in each section is written in

capital letters for clarification. (Referring back to this diagram at the

beginning of each numbered section may help to see the particular

interrelationship being described.)

1 07

Meaning is a necessary, constituting feature of the word itself. It is

the word viewed from the inside. This justifies the view that

znachenie slova is a phenomena of speech. In psychological

terms, however, znachenie slova is nothing other than a

generalization, that is a concept. In essence generalization and

znachenie slova are synonyms. Any generalization – any

formation of a concept – is unquestionably a specific and true act

of thought. Thus, znachenie slova is also a phenomenon of

thinking (1 987, p. 244).

IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



  (1 ). The INDIVIDUAL PSYCHE is demarked by the vertical line

near the middle of the figure and includes the psychological functions,

processes, structures, and systems that determine its course of

development. The psyche as the unification of the brain and mind,

involves interrelationships of numerous systems – historical, social,

cultural, biological, natural, emotional, chemical, electrical, physical,

activity, mental… among others. Vygotsky recognizes the importance

of the interrelationships of all of these systems, but his focus is on how

these interrelationships lead to and enhance the development of the

human psyche. In critiquing an approach that isolates functions for

analysis, Vygotsky writes:

Figure 1. Vygotsky’s Speaking/Thinking System with Meaning at its

Center

1 08 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



These processes are essential in the development of the systems that

constitute consciousness. In his analysis of the origins and development

of these systems, for both the species and the individual, Vygotsky

incorporates an examination of the roles played by social, cultural,

historical, and natural forces. His central focus is on the

interconnections among all of these processes and how they influence

the development of humanity’s and of the individual’s ability to

construct and communicate meaning through language.

  (2). The individual psyche develops through interaction with

SOCIAL CULTURAL NATURAL HISTORICAL SOURCEs. For the

SOCIAL aspect Vygotsky relies heavily on Marx and Engels’ analysis

of the role of labor in the development of human social formations and

of how humans changing nature through labor changed humanity.

Vygotsky focuses on “human sensuous activity” (Marx, 1 933, p. 471 )

and in particular the way in which humans develop higher psychical

processes. To do so he takes a HISTORICAL approach looking at the

genesis of those processes for the species and for the individual. The

historical development of humanity and its social forms of organization

are key forces in the development of the human psyche.

  Vygotsky’s genetic analysis of the species looks at the time when

“humanity…crossed the boundaries of animal existence” (1 997b, p. 44)

and examines two different processes in that crossing:

Because [that approach] causes the researcher to ignore the
unified and integral nature of the process being studied, this form
of analysis leads to profound delusion. The internal relationships
of the unified whole are replaced with external mechanical
relationships between two heterogeneous processes. (1 987, p. 46).
The result has been that the relationships between thought and
word have been understood as constant, eternal relationships
between things, not as internal, dynamic, and mobile relationships
between processes (1 987, p. 283).

1 09IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



 

On the one hand, it is the process of biological evolution of animal

species leading to the appearance of the species Homo sapiens; on

the other, it is the process of historical development by means of

which the primordial, primitive [hu]man became cultured. (1 997b,

p. 1 5)

  Vygotsky argues that NATURAL and CULTURAL forces create

“autonomous and independent lines of development” (p. 1 5) for the

species and for the individual. For humanity, “Culture creates special

forms of behavior, it modifies the activity of mental functions, it

constructs new superstructures in the developing system of human

behavior” (p. 1 8); for the child, natural and cultural processes “are

merged in ontogenesis and actually form a single, although complex

process” (p. 1 5), which has its origins at birth. Unlike for the human

species, which had reached an almost complete biological form by the

time higher psychical processes developed, growth and cultural

development occur at the same time for the child.

Cultural development of the child is still characterized primarily

by the fact that it occurs under conditions of dynamic change in

organic type. It is superimposed on processes of growth,

maturation, and organic development of the child and forms a

single whole with these. Only by abstraction can we separate

some processes from others. (p. 1 9)

  Vygotsky uses abstraction to examine two interrelated but distinct

processes that play a central role in the development of the human

psyche:

First, the processes of mastering external materials of cultural

development and thinking: language, writing, arithmetic, drawing;

second, the processes of development of special higher mental

1 1 0 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



  These processes are intertwined from the beginning, but it is only by

abstracting one from the other that we can begin to understand their

essence.

  In his analysis of the cultural development of the child, Vygotsky

focuses primarily on the role that language plays in the development

the speaking/thinking system in phylo- and ontogenesis. Natural and

cultural forces are central in the development of the human psyche.

Vygotsky appreciates the tremendous force that culture has on an

individual, but his focus is not primarily on cultural practices. Instead,

it is on the cultural development of the individual, especially the

acquisition of the ability to communicate through language. To study

the relationships between individuals and their social, cultural, natural,

and historical sources of development Vygotsky uses the concept of

perezhivanie.

  (3). PEREZHIVA�IE describes individuals’ interactions with and

experiences in the environment – their sociocultural worlds. Vygotsky

conceives of the environment broadly to include the whole “ensemble

of social relations,” a phrase Marx uses to describe the essence of

humanity in his Theses on Feuerbach (1 933, p. 473). “The essential

factors, which explain the influence of environment on the

psychological development of children and on the development of their

conscious personalities, are made up of their perezhivanie” (Vygotsky,

1 994, p. 339). This term refers to the way people perceive, emotionally

experience, appropriate, internalize, and understand interactions in their

social situations of development. “Perezhivanie is a unity where, on the

one hand, in an indivisible state, the environment is represented, i.e.that

which is being experienced…and on the other hand, what is represented

is how I, myself, am experiencing this, i.e., all the personal

characteristics and all the environmental characteristics are represented

in perezhivanie” (Vygotsky, 1 994, p. 342). There is no adequate

translation in English of the Russian term perezhivanie, and single or

two-word translations do not do justice to the concept. The

functions not delimited and not determined with any degree of

precision and in traditional psychology termed voluntary

attention, logical memory, formation of concepts, etc. (p. 1 4)

1 1 1IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



translators of Vygotsky’s article (1 994), “The Problem of the

Environment,” in which he explains perezhivanie, write “the Russian

term [perezhivanie] serves to express the idea that one and the same

objective situation may be interpreted, perceived, experienced or lived

through by different children in different ways” (p. 354). Vygotsky

points out that the way in which an experience is perceived and made

sense of actually affects the environment, not physically, but

perceptually. Perezhivanie describes the way that individuals

participate in and make meaning of “human sensuous activity.”

Throughout the discussion of the development of the speaking/thinking

system, it is important to keep perezhivanie in mind, because a

criticism of Vygotsky’s work is that it focuses too narrowly on internal

processes. However, in his analysis of the development of the

speaking/thinking system, Vygotsky continually emphasizes the role

that social interaction plays in its construction.

  (4). SOCIAL SITUATION OF DEVELOPMENT describes the

relationships of individuals to their environments and is key to the

“unity of the social and the personal” (1 998, p. 1 90). This unity

expresses “a completely original, exclusive, single, and unique relation,

specific to the given age, between the child and reality, mainly the

social reality that surrounds him. We call this relation the social

situation ofdevelopment at the given age” (p. 1 98). It is important to

note that Vygotsky conceives of the social situation of development as

a relation, not a context.

The child is a part of the social situation, and the relation of the

child to the environment and the environment to the child occurs

through the experience and activity of the child himself; the forces

of the environment acquire a controlling significance because the

child experiences them. (p. 294)

  The stage that children have achieved in their development is a key

factor in determining the nature of interactions in their social situations

of development. The concept of perezhivanie, experience in a social

situation of development, is key to understanding the role social

1 1 2 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



The basic finding of our research is that relationships of generality

between concepts are closely associated with the structure of

generalization (i.e., they are closely associated with the stages of

concept development that we studied in our experimental

research). Each structure of generalization (i.e. , syncretic,

complexes, preconcepts, and concepts) corresponds with a

specific system ofgenerality and specific types ofrelationships of

generality between general andspecific concepts (p. 225, italics in

original). …Thus, in concept development, the movement from

the general to the specific or from the specific to the general is

different for each stage in the development of meaning depending

on the structure of generalization dominant at that stage. (p. 226)

processes play in the development of an individual’s speaking/thinking

system.

  (5). The SPEAKING/THINKING SYSTEM is represented by the

largest oval, reflecting a more developed system. Because this system

develops, it would occupy far less space graphically in its initial stages.

It is important to recognize that Vygotsky is looking at the unity of

thinking and speaking processes by examining meaning/znachenie

slova at the center of the internal speaking/thinking system. Using the

foundation described in the four sections above, Vygotsky analyzes the

structure that is created through the development of one’s ability to

generalize.

  (6). The STRUCTURE OF GENERALIZATION co-develops with

the speaking/thinking system and provides a framework for it. The

ability to generalize develops as children acquire language and begin to

develop varies kind of concepts, representing different modes of

thinking. Both the meaning created in the speaking/thinking system and

the structure of generalization change as children acquire a new and

expanded understanding of different concepts.

  In chapter 5 of Thinking and Speech Vygotsky examines the origins

of this structure – the initial unification of the thinking and speaking

processes – through his analysis of znachenie slova. The foundation

1 1 3IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



for the structure of generalization includes the generalization involved

in a pointing gesture. The use of a gesture as symbolic representation

lays the foundation for the unification of thinking and speaking in a

system. The speaking/thinking system is created when children, in

interaction with adults, apply language to amalgamated visual images.

In this act of generalization, children bring together “a series of

elements that are externally connected in the impression they have had

on a child but not unified internally among themselves” (1 987, p. 1 34)

into what Vygotsky calls a syncretic heap or group. An example is

children associating the word “doggie” with their sensual and emotional

experiences with their pet and then grouping other objects or events that

evoke the same subjective impressions under the word “doggie”.

  The next step in the development of the structure of generalization

occurs when the “representatives of these [syncretic] groups are isolated

and once again syncretically united” (p. 1 35) – a generalization of a

generalization. To trace the development of the structure of

generalization, Vygotsky describes how different modes of thinking

create “the formation of connections, the establishment of relationships

among different concrete impressions, the unification and generalization

of separate objects, and the ordering and the systematization of the

whole of the child’s experience” (p. 1 35). He illustrates the unification

of speaking and thinking processes by showing how the use of a word

facilitates the development of voluntary attention, partitioning,

comparison, analysis, abstraction, and synthesis. The word tail will help

the child focus attention, isolate, abstract, generalize and synthesize

features. This kind of unification of speaking and thinking processes is

critical to the entire process of the development of meaning.

  As the syncretic form of thinking, the “connection-less,

connectedness” (p. 1 34) of visual images develops, a qualitative

transformation takes place and the next form of thinking – thinking in

complexes – emerges and brings about fundamental changes in the

structure of generalization. “The complex-collection is a generalization

of things based on their co-participation in a single practical operation, a

generalization of things based on their functional collaboration” (p.1 39).

The child includes objects in a complex based on empirical connections.

1 1 4 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



Vygotsky (1 987) gives an example of a chained-complex as a child

uses a word for a duck in a pond and then uses the same word for any

kind of liquid, for a coin with an eagle on it, and for anything round. In

the development of thinking in complexes, children’s forms of thinking

move through five different phases, always in a dialectical relationship

with the changing content of thinking, which is key to understanding

Vygotsky's claim that znachenie slova develops.

  The development of the form of thinking facilitates the development

of the content of thinking – meaning created through the unification of

thinking and speaking processes. The content of thinking reflects

increased capacity with language, facilitating the ability of children to

“use words or other signs as means of actively directing attention,

partitioning and isolating attributes abstracting these attributes and

synthesizing them” (1 987, p. 1 30). This ability to use abstract thinking

leads to “the isolation of the meaning from sound, the isolation of word

from thing, and the isolation of thought from word [which] are all

necessary stages in the history of the development of concepts” (1 987,

p. 284). At times in this process there are qualitative transformations

such as those between syncretic thinking and thinking in complexes

and those between thinking in complexes and thinking in concepts.

  The pseudoconcept is key to the transformation from thinking in

complexes to thinking in concepts. The child and the adult both focus

on an object designated by a word, and in that shared contact they are

able to communicate; however, they use different forms of thinking to

arrive at the point where they are using the same word for an object.

The “child thinks the same content differently, in another mode, and

through different intellectual operations” (1 987, p. 1 52). The child and

the adult have different modes of thought as the basis for their

speaking/thinking systems.

The child and adult understand each other with the pronunciation

of the word “dog” because they relate the word to the same object,

because they have the same concrete content in mind. However,

one thinks of the concrete complex “dog” [the pseudoconcept] and

the other of the abstract concept “dog”. (p. 1 55)

1 1 5IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



Adults also use pseudoconcepts as they go through the process of

transforming everyday concepts into scientific concepts – ones within

systems. Drawing on mathematics, Vygotsky gives an example of the

transition from the mode of thinking in complexes to the mode of

thinking in concepts.

The transition from preconcepts (e.g., the school child’s arithmetic

concept) to true concepts (e.g., the adolescent’s algebraic concept)

occurs through the generalization of previously generalized

objects. The preconcept is an abstraction of the number from the

object and, based on this, a generalization of the object’s

numerical characteristics. The concept is an abstraction from the

number and, based on this a generalization of the relationships

between numbers (1 987, p. 230).

  Critical of the theories of his day, Vygotsky writes, “all have

overlooked the generalization that is inherent in the word, this unique

mode of reflecting reality in consciousness” (1 987, p. 249).

Consequently, they miss that “Each structure of generalization has a

characteristic degree of unity, a characteristic degree of abstractness or

concreteness, and characteristic thought operations associated with a

given level of development ofznachenie slova” (1 987, p. 225).

  Before describing the final mode of thinking in the structure of

generalization – thinking in concepts – I look at the different ways in

which Vygotsky uses meaning and then relate them to his use of the

concept ofsense (smysl).

  (7). The concept of meaning is central to Vygotsky’s theory, but

because he uses meaning with a number of different connotations in

Thinking and Speech, there is often confusion about what he means

when he uses znachenie slova. Vygotsky argues that children do not

have to create or invent their language draw on the developed speech of

the adults around them. This adult speech is based on systems of

meaning captured as SOCIOCULTURAL MEANING in human

knowledge and understanding. Vygotsky examines how meaning

develops in a historical, natural, sociocultural context from humans’

first use of language to the fully developed systems of knowledge in

modern times. At times, Vygotsky uses meaning to refer to individual

1 1 6 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



words – meanings captured in dictionaries – Lexical Meaning (7a). At

other times he uses meaning to refer to Meaning in a Social Context

(7b) – the way in which knowledge and concepts are conveyed in an

individual’s particular sociocultural context. There is a level of fluidity

in sociocultural meaning ranging from the most fixed, meanings that

are codified in the dictionary, to the most fluid, Meaning in Language

Use (7c) – language in specific utterances, written and spoken sign

operations in particular social situations of development.

  Meaning/Znachenie Slova (7d) that is internally appropriated through

the sign operation and incorporated into an individual’s

speaking/thinking system is influenced by the social situation of

development – who is interacting with the individual, what is the

meaning being conveyed, and where the child is in the developmental

process. There is a constant interplay between the sociocultural

meaning and the meaning that is being created in the speaking/thinking

system. In analyzing external sociocultural meaning, the focus should

go beyond just the meaning and use of a particular word and also focus

on the processes through which meaning is conveyed in phrases,

sentences, idioms, metaphors, and larger texts, and then how it is

internalized into the individual’s meaning system. Vygotsky uses the

concept of sense (smysl) to help explain the internalization process – a

dialectical process through which sense develops the speaking/thinking

system and is developed by it.

  (8). Through the concept of SENSE Vygotsky examines the “three

basic characteristics of the semantics of inner speech” (1 987, p. 275)

and focuses primarily on the “unique semantic structure” of inner

speech, “indeed, the entire internal aspect of speech that is oriented

toward the personality” (1 987, p. 283). Attempts to describe

Vygotsky’s use of sense without considering that he is specifically

using it to analyze an internal system miss his central points. It is true

that the internal “unique semantic structure” has its origins in

sociocultural meanings, but there are always going to be degrees of

divergence between sociocultural meanings and the SENSE of words or

concepts incorporated as meaning in an individual’s speaking/thinking

system.

  Children’s first words are dominated by the sense of visual

perception and their emotional experience of the social situation of

1 1 7IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



until their exposures to and interaction with adults in their social

situations of development cause sociocultural meanings of words to

play a more significant role in children’s creation of meaning. The

internalization process through which the child makes meaning of

sociocultural meanings shapes the way that they are incorporated into

an individual’s Sense. In this process, Vygotsky points out that the

“child’s word may correspond with the adult’s in object relatedness, but

not in meaning” (1 987, p. 1 53), thus creating a different sense. Sense

(smysl) is an important component in the speaking/thinking system with

sociocultural meaning as an essential but subordinate part of sense. This

subordination is a defining characteristic of inner speech. “In inner

speech, we find a predominance of the word’s sense over its meaning”

(1 987, p. 274). “The meaning of the word in inner speech is an

individual meaning, a meaning understandable only in the plane of

inner speech” (p. 279). “To some extent, [sense] is unique for each

consciousness and for a single consciousness in varied circumstances”

(p. 276). Therefore, the sense of a word is never complete. Sense is “the

aggregate of all the psychological facts that arise in our consciousness

as the result of the word” (pp. 275-276) and is a transformative

component in the development of the speaking/thinking system.

“Ultimately, the word’s real sense is determined by everything in

consciousness which is related to what the word expresses…[and]

ultimately sense depends on one’s understanding of the world as a

whole and on the internal structure of personality” (p. 276).

  Essential to the speaking/thinking system is the lifelong, dynamic,

dialectic interplay between sociocultural meaning and sense that develops

in the internalization processes. Sense’s course of development includes:

the early trial and error period of syncretic images; the process of

thinking in complexes; the development of everyday and scientific

concepts; and adolescents' development of conscious awareness of their

own thinking processes – thinking in concepts. There is an ongoing

dialectical interaction in this development between the existing, relatively

stable, external sociocultural meanings and sense in the speaking/

thinking system.

  The way in which sociocultural meaning is transformed as it is

internalized can be seen at the level of single words in the difference

1 1 8 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



between the individual’s sense of the word and common usage based

on dictionary meanings. The word mother, for example, invokes for

every individual a very personal sense of the word. At the same time

there is the sociocultural meaning of the word denoting both a

biological and cultural relationship. The divergence between

sociocultural meaning and an individual’s sense exists in both the

internalization and externalization processes. Language can never fully

express an individual’s sense of a concept or a thought.

  (9). Just as there is an individual’s system of meaning and a

sociocultural system of meaning, there is a sociocultural SYSTEM OF

CONCEPTS (9) and an individual’s System of Concepts (9a). The

interaction with adults through the use of the pseudoconcept described

above in (6) lays the groundwork for the next transformation in

conceptual development as the child moves from concrete to abstract

thinking, and from thinking in complexes to thinking in concepts. A

system of concepts is built on the structure of generalization in the

speaking/thinking system, being influenced by and influencing it, in a

dialectical relationship. “The development of concepts or znachenie

slova presupposes the development of a whole series of [mental]

functions…voluntary attention, logical memory, abstraction,

comparison, and differentiation” (1 987, p. 1 70). Although the

foundation for concepts is laid when children begin to acquire

language, they do not use concepts existing in systems until they reach

adolescence. As the child begins to isolate and abstract separate

elements, and “to view these isolated, abstracted elements

independently of the concrete and empirical connections in which they

are given” (1 987, p. 1 56), the speaking/thinking system undergoes a

qualitative transformation as the child begins to think in concepts.

“The concept arises when several abstracted features are re-synthesized

and when this abstract synthesis becomes the basic form of thinking

through which the child perceives and interprets reality” (p. 1 59).

The most important psychological process for adolescents in acqui-

ring the ability to think in concepts is the development of an "internal

meaningful perception of their own mental processes” (p. 1 90), through

which they gain conscious awareness of their thinking processes. This

introspection “represents the initial generalization or abstraction of

internal mental forms of activity” (p. 1 90). Vygotsky argues that this

1 1 9IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



generalization and abstraction can only be accomplished through the

process of developing a system of concepts, the source of which is the

system that exists externally and includes scientific concepts, which are

generally, but not exclusively, introduced at school. As it is

internalized, this system of concepts becomes part of the process that is

developing meaning in the speaking/thinking system. “Psychologically,

the development of concepts and the development of znachenie slova

are one and the same process” (1 987, p. 1 80).

  Vygotsky argues that scientific/academic concepts “can arise in the

child’s head only on the foundation provided by the lower and more

elementary forms of generalization which previously existed” (p. 1 77).

The systematic use of concepts transforms the structure of

generalization as the system of scientific concepts “is transferred

structurally to the domain of the everyday concepts, restructuring the

everyday concept and changing its internal nature from above” (p.

1 92). A dialectical relationship is established with the everyday

concepts in which the “scientific concept grows downward through the

everyday concept and the everyday concept moves upward through the

scientific…. In this process, [everyday concepts]...are restructured in

accordance with the structures prepared by the scientific concept” (p.

220). The link between the everyday and scientific concepts as they

move in opposite directions is that “of the zone of proximal

development” (p. 220).

  This systematization of concepts brings about a qualitative

transformation in the speaking/thinking system, generating changes in

adolescents’ volition and creating a conscious awareness of their own

thinking processes.

1 20

Only within a system can the concept acquire conscious

awareness and a voluntary nature. Conscious awareness and the

presence of a system are synonyms when we are speaking of

concepts, just as spontaneity, lack of conscious awareness, and the

absence of a system are three different [ways of] designating the

nature of the child's concept (pp. 1 91 -1 92).

Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



The adolescent’s speaking/thinking system, which incorporates

conscious awareness and systematization of concepts, yields a

qualitatively different view of reality, because it has different

relationships of generality than that of a system based on everyday

concepts. (The following quote from Vygotsky, describing this different

view, ends the description of the items in the diagram above.)

According to a well-known definition of Marx, if the form of a

manifestation and the essence of things coincided directly, then all

science would be superfluous. For this reason, thinking in

concepts is the most adequate method of knowing reality because

it penetrates into the internal essence of things, for the nature of

things is disclosed not in direct contemplation of one single object

or another, but in the connections and relations that are manifested

in movement and in the development of the object, and these

connect it to all of the rest of reality. The internal connection of

things is disclosed with the help of thinking in concepts, for to

develop a concept of some object means to disclose a series of

connections and relations of that object with all the rest of reality,

to include it in the complex system of phenomena (1 998, p. 54).

Inner Speech and the Speaking/Thinking System

After analyzing the construction of the structure of generalization and

the creation of a system of concepts, Vygotsky uses functional analysis

to examine the internalization of speech and its mediation of thought

central to the creation of meaning in the speaking/thinking system. The

unit znachenie slova reveals “the complex structure of the actual

process of thinking, the complex movement from the first vague

emergence of thought to a completion in a verbal formulation” and

shows how “meanings function in the living process” of the

speaking/thinking system (1 987, p. 249). In each stage in development

“there exists not only a specific structure of verbal meaning, but a

special relationship between thinking and speech that defines this

structure” (p. 249). Vygotsky examines this relationship by describing

the different planes through which “thought passes as it becomes

embodied in the word” (p. 250).

1 21IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



  Vygotsky begins his analysis with the external plane and then

proceeds to the different internal planes, focusing mainly on inner

speech. “Without a correct understanding of the psychological nature of

inner speech, we cannot clarify the actual complex relationships

between thought and word” (p. 255). As opposed to Piaget, who

proposed that egocentric speech – articulated speech directed to oneself

– disappears, Vygotsky argues that it becomes internalized in the form

of inner speech as part of the process of intermental/external

functioning becoming intramental/internal functioning. In this

internalization process the function and structure of language changes,

which in turn changes the speaking/thinking system. The

transformations in the internalization of speech include fragmentation,

abbreviation, and agglutination, along with predicativity. “The

simplification of syntax, the minimization of syntactic differentiation,

the expression of thought in condensed form and the reduction in the

quantity of words all characterize this tendency toward predicativity

that external speech manifests under certain conditions” (p. 269).

Experimental research on inner speech reveals that:

The structural and functional characteristics of egocentric speech

develop along with the development of the child. At three years of

age, there is little difference between egocentric and

communicative speech. By seven years of age, nearly all of the

functional and structural characteristics of egocentric speech differ

from those of social speech. (p. 261 )

1 22

Vygotsky’s analysis of znachenie slova reveals the internal planes in

the speaking/thinking system from external speech to inner speech, from

inner speech to pure thought, and, ultimately, to the “motivating sphere

of consciousness, a sphere that includes our inclinations and needs, our

interests and impulses, and our affect and emotion. The affective and

volitional tendency stands behind thought” (p. 282). Thought motivated

in the affective/volition system combines with language in the

speaking/thinking system leading to production of written or oral

language. In this process “thought is not only mediated externally by y

signs. It is mediated internally by meanings” (p. 282). “Where external

speech involves the embodiment of thought in the word, in inner speech

Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



the word dies away and gives birth to thought. To a significant extent,

inner speech is thinking in pure meanings, though as the poet says ‘we

quickly tire of it’” (p. 280). There is a qualitative difference between

the external meaning and function of language and the meaning and

function it acquires through internalization into internal

speaking/thinking systems.

This outline of the characteristics of inner speech leaves no doubt

concerning the validity of our basic thesis, the thesis that inner

speech is an entirely unique, independent, and distinctive speech

function, that it is completely different from external speech. This

justifies the view that inner speech is an internal plane of rechnoi

myshlenie [the speaking/thinking system] which mediates the

dynamic relationship between thought and word. (1 987, p. 279,

italics in original)

Qualitative Transformations in the Speaking/Thinking System

For Vygotsky, psychological systems do not proceed on a linear path;

rather their courses are determined by qualitative transformations in the

relationships between mental functions and other psychological

processes. These qualitative transformations take place in the

speaking/thinking system and affect and are affected by the

development of the structure of generalization. Analyzing these

qualitative changes leads Vygotsky to the central discovery of his

research – that znachenie slova develops. His analysis of znachenie

slova reveals that transformations in interpsychological relationships

result in the speaking/thinking system’s development. They include the:

      (a) development of higher psychological processes through

    reconstruction of elementary processes;

    (b) development of the structure of generalization in stages marked

    by different modes of thinking – syncretic, complexive, and

    conceptual;

    (c) development of scientific/academic concepts in relationship to

    spontaneous/everyday concepts;

1 23IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)



    (d) internalization of speech and the development of inner speech;

    and

    (e) transformations in the relationships of mental functions that bring

    about periods of “crisis” in children’s development at approximately

    ages one, three, seven, and thirteen.

The unification of speaking and thinking processes brings about

transformations “from direct, innate, natural forms and methods of

behavior to mediated, artificial mental functions that develop in the

process ofcultural development” (1 998, p. 1 68, italics in original). The

higher psychological processes depend on new mechanisms that result

not from the gradual, linear development of the elementary processes,

but from “a qualitatively new mental formation [that] develops

according to completely special laws subject to completely different

patterns” (1 998, p. 34). The development of this new formation, the

speaking/thinking system with meaning and concepts at its core, leads

to a transformation in which elementary “processes that are more

primitive, earlier, simpler, and independent of concepts in genetic,

functional, and structural relations, are reconstructed on a new basis

when influenced by thinking in concepts” (1 998, p. 81 ).

Conclusion

Vygotsky states that his study had only just begun and that he had

merely been able to show the complexity of the system that is created

through the unification of thinking and speaking. He was not able to

conduct more research on it as he died shortly after completing

Thinking and Speech. His work, banned by Stalin’s bureaucracy in

1 936, remained virtually unavailable until 1 956. When once again it

began to see the light of day, it was through interpretations, which

claimed that Vygotsky’s unit znachenie slova was used to analyze

consciousness as a whole and that it was not adequate for that task

(Leontiev, 1 981 ). Vygotsky clearly states he is using znachenie slova to

examine the speaking/thinking system and not consciousness as a

whole; nevertheless, Leontiev rejects Vygotsky’s unit and substitutes an

evolving series of units tied to human activity to analyze consciousness.

Leaving to a further discussion the question of whether or not this

substitution has merit, it has contributed to obscuring Vygotsky’s

analysis of the unit znachenie slova to reveal the speaking/thinking

1 24 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making



system, resulting in the phenomenon that Vygotsky put at the center of

his analysis being overlooked.

While it is impossible in a short article to do justice to Vygotsky’s

analysis of znachenie slova to reveal the complexity of the

speaking/thinking system through which children make meaning of

their worlds, I hope that this exploration has shown the value of reading

Vygotsky's work, both broadly and deeply. Through such a reading,

scholars can gain a better understanding of his notion of consciousness

as a system of systems and also can see the overall coherence in his

work as it evolved during his lifetime. Such an understanding can also

stimulate further exploration of Vygotsky’s analysis of the way that

children make meaning of their worlds through the development of

speaking/thinking systems.

Acknowledgements

1 25IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology 1(2)

References

Thanks to Vera John-Steiner, as always, for her ongoing inspiration and thoughtful
collaboration. Seth Chaiklin’s, Jim Lantolf’s, and Aaro Toomela’s insightful comments
on the paper helped shape its final form. A special thanks to the many graduate
students, colleagues, and friends who have commented on this paper and to Susan
Metheny and Izabella Kovarzina, who helped with translations from Russian.

Leontiev, A.N., (1 981 ). The development ofmind. New York, NY:

Progress Publishers.

Mahn, H. (201 0). Vygotsky’s methodological approach: A blueprint

for the future of psychology. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner

(Eds.). MethodologicalThinking in Psychology: 60YearsGone

Astray? (pp. 297–323). Charlotte: NC: Information Age

Publishing.

Marx, K. (1 933). Theses on Feuerbach. In SelectedWorks, Volume

One, (pp. 471 -473). Moscow: International Publishers. Also

available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1 845/

theses/theses.htm



The history ofthe development ofhighermental functions. R.W.

Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York: Plenum.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1 998). The collectedworks ofL. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 5.

Childpsychology. R.W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.). New

York: Plenum.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1 976). TheGerman ideology in Collected

works, Vol. 5. New York: International Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1 987). The collectedworks ofL. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1.

Problems ofgeneral psychology. R.W. Rieber and A. S. Carton

(Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1 994). TheVygotsky reader. R. van der Veer & J.

Valsiner (Eds.).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1 997a). The collectedworks ofL. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 3.

Problems ofthe theory andhistory ofpsychology. R.W. Rieber

and A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York: Plenum.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1 997b). The collectedworks ofL. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 4.

Holbrook Mahn is Associate Professor in the Department of

Language, Literacy & Sociocultural Studies at the University of

New Mexico, College of Education, United States of America.

Contact Address: Direct correspondence to the author at 21 2

Hokona Hall, College of Education, University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, NM 871 31 . E-mail:hmahn@unm.edu

1 26 Mahn - Vygotsky’s Analysis of Children’s Meaning Making




