The Vygotsky chapters have a big emphasis on sign usage. My understanding is that a sign is a link between a stimulus and a response that may only mean something to that particular learner (i.e. the sign is something the learner uses to remember something else or remember to do something else). The example used on pages 41-45 with the questions, colors, and cards helped me understand this. This ability of humans to make use of signs I think is what Vygotsky is saying puts our thinking above animals. He says, “comparative analysis shows that such activity is absent in even the highest species of animals; we believe that these sign operations are the product of specific conditions of social development” (pp 39). This makes me think of the “left of the blue wall” example in the RadioLab podcast. The rat was not able to make the link between left and blue and was only able to find the biscuit 50% of the time. However, humans are able to make the link between left and blue and remember that the biscuit is in the corner to the left of the blue wall. I think Vygotsky would explain this through the use of sign.
Now that I brought up the podcast I am also thinking about language and how it helps us think. I believe before I listened to the podcast I would say that thought comes before language. However, now I am thinking about how the internalization of language is what allows us to think. I think Vygotsky would agree with this. On page 46 he says, “the developmental roots of two fundamental, culture forms of behavior arise during infancy: the use of tools and human speech.” This doesn’t exactly get at what the podcast was talking about but it does allude to the fact that thinking/processing relies on culture and tools and language. Therefore, thinking probably relies on the fact that language is developed.
Grace,
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on signs, as I was kinda confused about their situation within the thought process. I know that Vygotsky was trying to prove that they play an integral role in human psychological development, but I wasn’t quite getting the linkage. Your explanation makes total sense to me though, being that internalized signs probably do have specific meaning to the person that created them. If you were to somehow transfer one sign to someone else’s brain, they may have no idea how to use it or understand its significance. As a last thought, I feel as though Vygotsky suggests that children don’t really have these highly individualized signs being that they haven’t developed composite thought processes yet.