In this commentary, I analyze Zittoun and her collaborators’ idea of symbolic resources as mediators of the representational work demanded by ruptures or discontinuities in the experience of ordinary life (Zittoun, Duveen, Gillespie, Ivinson, & Psaltis, 2003). These remarks are mainly centered on the ideas of disquieting experienceand alterity, approached from the lens of semiotic-cultural constructivism, which seems to allow a more in-depth discussion of the I–world relationship suggested by the authors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press .
2.
Boesch, E.E. (1979). Action et object—deux sources de l’ identitÈ du moi. In P. Tap (Ed.), IdentitÈ individuelle et personalization(pp. 23–37). Toulouse: Privat.
3.
Boesch, E.E. (1991). Symbolic action theory and cultural psychology. Berlin: Springer .
4.
Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. London: Sage .
5.
Herbst, D.P. (1995). What happens when we make a distinction: An elementary introduction to co-genetic logic. In T. Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Development of person–context relations(pp. 67–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
6.
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London/New York: Routledge .
7.
Laupies, F. (1999). LeÁon philosophique sur autrui. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
8.
Linell, P. (1995). Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Markov·, C. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue(pp. 176–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
9.
Markov·, I. (1997). On two concepts of interaction. In M. Grossen & B. Py (Eds.), Pratiques sociales et mediations symboliques(pp. 23–44). Bem/Berlin: Lang .
10.
Markov·, I. (2000). AmÈdÈe or how to get rid of it: Social representations from a dialogical perspective . Culture & Psychology, 6(4), 419–460 .
11.
Oliveira, M.S., & Sim’o, L.M. (2003). ConstruÁ’o de conhecimento em interaÁies verbais aluno–aluno durante soluÁ’o de problemas matem·ticos: Uma an·lise semiÛtico-construtivista.Manuscript in preparation.
12.
Sim’o, L.M. (2000). The role of the otherin the process of knowledge construction during interactions: Developments from the Symbolic Action Theory of Ernst Boesch . Annals of the 3rd. Conference for Sociocultural Research. Campinas, S’o Paulo, Brazil [CD-ROM].
13.
Sim’o, L.M. (2001). Boesch’ s symbolic action theory in interaction . Culture & Psychology, 7(4), 485–493 .
14.
Sim’o, L.M. (2002, 23–6 October). Semiose e di·logo: Para onde aponta o construtivismo semiÛtico-cultural? Paper presented at the XXXII Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Psychology, FlorianÛpolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
15.
Sim’o, L.M., de Souza, M.T.C.C., & Coelho, N.E., Jr. (2002). NoÁ’o de objeto, concepÁ’o de sujeito: Freud, Piaget e Boesch. S’o Paulo: Casa do PsicÛlogo.
16.
Valsiner, J. (1989). Human development and culture. Lexington, MA: Heath .
17.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children¥s action: A theory of human development(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley .
18.
Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
19.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
20.
Zittoun, T., Duveen, G., Gillespie, A., Invison, G., & Psaltis, C. (2003). The use of symbolic resourses in developmental transitions . Culture & Psychology, 9(4), 415–448 .
