Thought and Language

I am not a linguist but rather a psychologist interested in the relation between thought and language. From reading this translation, I infer that Vygotsky was a great writer and the translators likewise. I've read current literature and this work has a remarkably contemporary feel to me. If you're interested in the topic, you can't go wrong with this classic.

Excellent translation of a book which was overlooked for so long. Still reads well today....

If you are a college student in the areas of education, social-culture, behavioral sciences this book work for you. Here you will find in details Vigostky theory.

Starts off slow introducing things to the reader and builds up over time until it picks up and gets better in explaining in detail the results of his work and his conclusions after all the hard work of getting past all the framework for a good many chapters in. The book can be a bit extensive, but it's not overwhelmingly taxing with poor formatting and typography thankfully, rather, it makes it a little easier to read and understand the views being conveyed; however, as subject matter is concerned, it leaves an interesting cliffhanger of the usual "can you use an abstract modular framework to explain and describe the nature of thought relative to language or not?"The question itself is basically the same kind of wall that quantum physics is being blocked by as well in it's understanding of that phenomena. At the same time, it's also another rehashed and repeated question of "Can we explain the nature of thought, mind and consciousness without the rationality of a model's theoretical framework?" In which, he declines no, but has left contributions of the stages and nature of thought over the developmental span and how concrete and abstract concepts are formed by performance of pattern recognition of those concepts, but are limited to the framework of language and feels and believes this his work and model like his predecessors and the rest to be contemporary and nothing novel or timeless.Basically, it all boils down to questioning the nature of the model's framework, and if it does fall inline with ontological reality or not and will there? Afterwards, he gives his final thoughts and leaves the conclusions in a cliffhanger where he too was stumped and eventually concluded from there and once again posed the question of trying to understand the ontological nature of the fundamental laws of human thought, mind and consciousness with or without a modular theoretical framework. Unfortunately, despite his efforts and untimely death, his work has been left inconclusive.Despite the excellent formatting of this book, the subject matter also wasn't as great and interesting as hoped for and made out to be to the reader to be disappointed and underwhelmed by the explanation and reviews for it to be worth an expensive $25 to acquire in one's library. Sure, it had some interesting information, but almost nothing home to write about or even worth keeping in a library if you want someone else's take and methodology of their findings in one book which honestly didn't lead much to all or even comes to any good conclusion either.This is to help the curious reader whose curiosity is piqued by both the cover and synopsis, in hopes that it'll give them an idea as to what it is they're in for to help save them the disappointment of them being overhyped for what it isn't: a model for the nature of thought and consciousness. It's an explanation of the framework, processes and findings of those experiments he observed and conducted. Nothing else.