Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Culture & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Toomela, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

What Characterizes Language That Can Be Internalized: A Reply to Tomasello

Aaro Toomela

Tartu University, Estonia

Tomasello disagrees with my position that language is the only human artefact that potentiates internalization. Tomasello's position seems to imply that language can be only verbal. My position is that every object or behavioural act is a symbol if it has all of the following characteristics: symbol must be an object or phenomenon that can be directly perceived through sense organs; meaning of symbols must be shared by organisms; symbols must refer to objects, events or phenomena; it must be possible to use a symbol differently from its referents. Internalization is possible only by means of symbols with such characteristics.

Key Words: characteristics of symbols • internalization • semiotic • mediation

Culture & Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 319-322 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X9600200307
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
Commentary: Activity Theory is a Dead End for Methodological Thinking in Cultural Psychology Too
Culture Psychology, September 1, 2008; 14(3): 289 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
Commentary: Vygotskian Cultural-Historical and Sociocultural Approaches Represent Two Levels of Analysis: Complementarity Instead of Opposition
Culture Psychology, March 1, 2008; 14(1): 57 - 69.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
T. Zittoun
Symbolic Competencies for Developmental Transitions: the Case of the Choice of First Names
Culture Psychology, June 1, 2004; 10(2): 131 - 161.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
How Should Culture be Studied?
Culture Psychology, March 1, 2003; 9(1): 35 - 45.
[Abstract] [PDF]