Challenges and divergences in the translations of L. S. Vygotsky: a study of the text ‘The problem of mental retardation’

Abstract

This article is the result of discussions held within an international research group, composed of Swiss, Brazilian, and Italian scholars, concerning Vygotskian texts on disability. The central objective of this study is to examine the differences found in the translations of the text The Problem of Mental Retardation into four Western languages — Portuguese, English, French, and Spanish — highlighting, from a comparative perspective, the terminological choices, reformulations, and other elements that, when compared, produce divergent meanings. The guiding question of this investigation can be formulated as follows: are there significant differences in the terminological choices among the translations of this text? If so, what are they? The comparative analysis allowed for the identification of problems related to syntactic reformulations, omissions, and additions, as well as terminological variations that directly impact the meaning of the passages. The results reveal a conflict of criteria in translational choices: on the one hand, the need to maintain the terminological rigor of the original text; on the other, the adaptations required for the text to be understood by readers from a different language, culture, and historical period.

Keywords
translation; terminological differences; Vygotsky; disability; inclusive education

Resumo

Este artigo é fruto de discussões desenvolvidas em um grupo internacional de pesquisa, composto por estudiosos suíços, brasileiros e italianos, em torno dos textos vigotskianos sobre deficiência. O objetivo central do estudo é examinar as diferenças existentes nas traduções do texto “O problema do retardo mental” em quatro línguas ocidentais — português, inglês, francês e espanhol —–, destacando, em perspectiva comparativa, as escolhas terminológicas, as reformulações e outros elementos que, ao serem cotejados, produzem sentidos divergentes. A questão que orienta a investigação pode ser assim formulada: existem diferenças significativas nas escolhas terminológicas entre as traduções desse texto? Em caso afirmativo, quais são elas? A análise comparativa permitiu identificar problemas relacionados a reformulações sintáticas, omissões e acréscimos, bem como variações terminológicas que impactam diretamente o sentido das passagens. Os resultados evidenciam um conflito de critérios nas escolhas tradutórias: de um lado, a necessidade de manter o rigor terminológico do original; de outro, as adaptações exigidas para que o texto possa ser compreendido por leitores de outra língua, cultura e época histórica.

Palavras-chave
tradução; diferenças terminológicas; Vigotski; deficiência; educação inclusiva

Resumen

Este artículo es fruto de discusiones desarrolladas en un grupo internacional de investigación, compuesto por estudiosos suizos, brasileños e italianos, en torno a los textos vygotskianos sobre discapacidad. El objetivo central del estudio es examinar las diferencias existentes en las traducciones del texto “El problema del retraso mental” en cuatro lenguas occidentales —portugués, inglés, francés y español—, destacando, en perspectiva comparativa, las elecciones terminológicas, las reformulaciones y otros elementos que, al ser cotejados, producen sentidos divergentes. La cuestión que orienta la investigación puede ser formulada de la siguiente manera: ¿existen diferencias significativas en las elecciones terminológicas entre las traducciones de ese texto? En caso afirmativo, ¿cuáles son? El análisis comparativo permitió identificar problemas relacionados con reformulaciones sintácticas, omisiones y adiciones, así como variaciones terminológicas que impactan directamente el sentido de los pasajes. Los resultados evidencian un conflicto de criterios en las elecciones de traducción: por un lado, la necesidad de mantener el rigor terminológico del original; por otro, las adaptaciones exigidas para que el texto pueda ser comprendido por lectores de otra lengua, cultura y época histórica.

Palabras clave
traducción; diferencias terminológicas; Vygotski; discapacidad; educación inclusiva

Introduction

This article stems from discussions resulting from our participation in an advanced study group on Vygotskian texts, composed of Swiss, Brazilian, and Italian researchers¹. The meetings, which have been taking place since 2018, aim to translate texts by L. S. Vygotsky² from Russian into French that are not yet known — or that present visible translation issues — to the Francophone community. Over the past three years, the group has dedicated itself to works in the field known at the time as Defectology, focusing on texts that discuss the relationship between normality and abnormality in the author’s work. Beyond the translation effort, the meetings have been guided by a detailed study of the conceptual contributions of this field, seeking to grasp its theoretical determinations within the totality of the author’s work. In this process, it becomes possible to understand that the issue of disability does not constitute a marginal or applied domain, but rather a privileged point for the elaboration of the general laws of human development.

During the meetings, we encountered various difficulties regarding the translation and interpretation of the selected texts. One of the texts that presented the greatest translation and interpretation challenges is, undoubtedly, the one entitled: “The Problem of Mental Retardation”³. Over the course of the meetings, we realized that some of the controversies that arose during the reading of this text were due to lexical, as well as conceptual, differences among the existing translations into Western languages.

In this context, the text “The Problem of Mental Retardation” takes on a central role, occupying a strategic position in the understanding of Vygotskian production by condensing, in a particularly elaborate manner, the theoretical maturation movement that characterizes his final years. It is a text that, while anchored in the discussions of the field of defectology, pushes its own boundaries, shifting the problem of disability to the broader plane of the constitution of consciousness.

This shift assumes a central role in the current educational scenario due to policies dedicated to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the context of mainstream education. Vygotsky’s positive view on disability repositions this population within the perspective of the right to education in terms of their learning potential (Vygotski, 1929/1997). Such a perspective confers relevance to the teaching role by making explicit the active, mediating, and creative role of the teacher in elaborating pedagogical strategies oriented toward the potential development of students, whether they are considered atypical or typical (Mendonça et al., 2020).

Frequently considered one of the author’s final texts, it expresses not only an analytical deepening but also a decisive turning point in his scientific project, by shifting the focus from isolated functions to the dynamic unity of intellect and affect, thus breaking with the psychologizing and biologizing traditions that have marked the study of disability. The unity of intellect and affect establishes itself as a structuring principle of conceptual construction processes in general, and must guide the organization of pedagogical practices in both special and mainstream education. Although, in the text analyzed for the purposes of this article, Vygotsky does not directly address the role of the teacher or the school in working with children with disabilities, as he does in other writings (Vigotski, 1927/1929/1931/1997), the conceptual foundations proposed therein prove decisive for teaching practices in inclusive contexts. The “Problem of Mental Retardation”, therefore, presents a high degree of conceptual and terminological complexity and is frequently considered an unfinished text, as it leaves open numerous questions that span the entirety of his work.

In this vein, the translation choices, which were widely debated by the aforementioned group, proved to be highly relevant, since each textual option inevitably carried a particular interpretive bias. Therefore, driven by this interpretive effort, we decided to present in this article the differences in the translation of this text by comparing the versions published in four Western languages: Portuguese, English, French, and Spanish⁴. They are as follows:

• Vigotski, L. S. (2022). Obras Completas – Tomo Cinco: Fundamentos de Defectologia. EDUNIOESTE. Translation attributed to the Programa Institucional de Ações Relativas às Pessoas com Necessidades Especiais [Institutional Program of Actions Related to People with Special Needs] (PEE). Revised by Guillermo Arias Beatón.

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1896-1934/1993). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 2 – The Fundamentals of Defectology (Abnormal Psychology and Learning Disabilities). Springer Science & Business Media. Translated by Jane E. Knox, Bowdoin College, and Carol B. Stevens, Colgate University.

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1928-34 / 1994). Défectologie et déficience mentale. Delachaux et Niestlé. Edited by K. Barisnikov and G. Petitpierre.

• Vigotski, L. S. (1997). Obras Escogidas – Tomo V: Fundamentos de Defectología. Visor Dis. Translated by Julio Guillermo Blank. Revised and adapted by Jesus Vidarte Vargas and Irina Filanova.

Our study takes as its starting point a comparative reading of the texts, highlighting syntactic reformulations, omissions, additions, and terminological differences that influence the meaning of the texts. Furthermore, we decided to analyze any added paratexts, such as translators’ notes and prefaces, which may explain the choices made throughout the translation process. As will become evident upon reading the material, this procedure allows us to identify differences in translation choices that can lead to divergent, and even mistaken, conceptual understandings of the issues discussed by Vygotsky.

Broadly speaking, this article aims to investigate some fundamental questions: i) Are there significant differences in the terminological choices among the translations of this text?; ii) What kind of informative explanation is provided to the reader by each edition?; and iii) How do current texts reinterpret and update older terms for contemporary times, considering the current academic landscape?

Our hypothesis is that the translation process of any text involves an interpretive reading of the original and, among other factors, a conflict of criteria in translation choices that oscillate between terminological rigor and the necessary adaptations to make the text accessible to readers of another language, culture, and era. In other words, while some translations opt to maintain a stricter correspondence with the words and syntactic constructions of the original text, even if this may raise doubts among readers, others seek to adapt the text to the reception parameters in the target languages, running the risk of distorting the original meaning.

In view of the importance and amplitude of the Vygotskian work for various fields of knowledge, our study highlights aspects of the translation and editing process of the works that can help to understand the discrepancies between the presentation of the texts in the different languages analyzed. Thus, after this introduction, in section 2, we will make some considerations about the translation work of Vygotsky’s work, in order to, in section 3, examine the publication context of the analyzed text in its different editions and its relevance - not only for the field of studies on inclusion, but also for the understanding of fundamental concepts of Vygotsky’s work. In this same section, we will detail the methodological procedures adopted for the collation of the editions of the text, the selection and treatment of the excerpts that will be presented in section 4, in the format of analysis. In our final considerations, in addition to highlighting the importance of this text for the field of education, we will make some comments on the translation difficulties of the text “The Problem of Mental Retardation” and on the precautions that must be taken in issues related to translation in a general way.

Translating and Retranslating Vygotsky

The perspective on Vygotsky’s translations proposed in this article takes as its starting point the reception of these texts in Western academia. In this sense, the importance of translating Vygotskian texts for the dissemination of the author’s work beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union is undeniable. In revisiting the translation history of Vygotsky’s texts, we start from the premise that translation, much like the writing of a text, is always situated and influenced by multiple contextual factors, and that, beyond translation problems inherent to the non-equivalence between languages, a systematic review of the texts can reveal translational choices guided by pressures from the editorial context. In the case of Vygotsky’s work, the need to produce not only new editions of previously unpublished texts but also new translations of Vygotskian texts that are more faithful to the original works is widely accepted and pointed out by several authors (Mecacci, 1990; van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2011; Yasnitsky, 2012; Prestes, 2012; Marques, 2018).

In his introduction to the Italian translation of Thought and Language⁵, Mecacci (1990) surveys the three Russian editions — from 1934, 1956, and 1982 — and various Western translations of the book, in order to clarify for the reader the source text of each translation and its fidelity to the original. According to Mecacci, in the case of Thought and Language, preference should be given to the original 1934 publication, as the subsequent Russian editions bear the marks of an editorial operation to suppress repetitions in an attempt to make the reading more palatable. This, according to the Italian theorist and translator, constitutes a true “rewriting of the original text” (Mecacci, 1990, p. x). Based on this observation, the author provides an annotated survey of the publications of Thought and Language, categorizing the translated editions according to their source text: (i. The original 1934 Russian text, such as his own translation into Italian, published in 1990; (ii. The 1956 Russian edition, such as the first German translation, published in 1964; (iii. The 1982 Danish edition; and (iv. The 1982 Russian edition, featuring Françoise Sève’s French translation, published in 1985, and the book Thinking and Speech, from 1987.

Van der Veer and Yasnitsky (2011) attribute the significant divergence among the three Russian editions of Thought and Language (from 1934, 1956, and 1982) to a probable contamination of the more recent texts. Corroborating Mecacci (1990), the authors reinforce the need for caution with original Vygotskian texts, whose manuscripts are often distorted by editing errors, and in some cases for political and ideological reasons (Prestes, 2012). In the Russian editions of the Collected Works (Sobranie sochinenij), the suppression of several passages due to editorial censorship can be observed. A striking example occurs in the 1965 Russian edition of The Psychology of Art, from which references to Trotsky, Bukharin, and other authors then considered “enemies of the people” were eliminated (Fraser & Yasnitsky, 2016; van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2016). Among the problems found in the various translations published in Western languages are omissions of terms or excerpts, substitutions of key terms, inaccuracies, suppression of mentioned authors or citations, and even additions, whether due to misguided editorial choices or gross translation errors (Mecacci, 1990; van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2011).

For the more rigorous Brazilian researcher, it is also necessary to consider the cascading effect of potential distortions to the original text. In Brazil, the first studies based on Vygotsky’s work were produced in the 1980s, primarily in the fields of education and school psychology, drawing on the Argentine (1964), European Portuguese (1979), and Brazilian Portuguese (1987) editions of Thought and Language, all of which were based on English-language editions.

Until then, access to Vygotsky’s texts for researchers speaking Western languages was primarily through a 1962 American translation published by MIT Press, which featured significant textual omissions. This can be easily verified by its reduced length of 164 pages, compared to the 324 pages of the original work (Duarte, 2000; Prestes, 2012). The same can be said of the collection Mind in Society, composed of fragments or summaries of Vygotsky’s texts amalgamated with additional sources, such as texts by his collaborators, as pointed out by van der Veer and Yasnitsky (2011). It can be concluded, therefore, that until the mid-1980s, Western-language speakers interested in Vygotskian theory only had access to text fragments and to commentaries and analyses based on those very fragments..

In the case of the first American translation of Thought and Language, published in 1962, it is interesting to note that the suppressions and alterations made to the original text were pointed out and even justified by the editors themselves, as can be seen in the translators’ introduction to the book:

In the late thirties, one of the translators of the present edition, E. Hanfmann, in collaboration with J. Kasanin, repeated some of Vygotsky’s studies of concept formation; she remembers vividly the struggle of winding her way through his text. When Vygotsky’s collaborator and friend Professor A. R. Luria approached her in 1957 with the request that she participate in the translation of Thought and Language, she expressed her conviction that a literal translation would not do justice to Vygotsky’s thought. It was agreed that excessive repetition and certain polemical discussions that would be of little interest to the contemporary reader should be eliminated, in favor of a more straightforward exposition. In translating the book, we have simplified and clarified Vygotsky’s involved style, while striving always to render his meaning exactly. The internal organization of the chapters has been preserved, except in Chapter 2, where extensive omissions resulted in a rearrangement of the text and in a greatly reduced number of subdivisions

(Hanfmann & Vakar, 1962, pp. xi–xiii).

It should be noted that the factors pointed out for the alterations to the text concern, on the one hand, the translators’ own textual comprehension and, on the other, the image they held of the book’s potential contemporary reader. We might ask ourselves to which contemporaneity they refer, and whether other reasons might have weighed on the choices regarding what was suppressed from the original texts. In any case, it is clear that, regarding this edition, the concern with the work’s reception in the American context⁶ and with its broader circulation led to editorial strategies that are considered inappropriate today, but which were effective at the time.

Particularly in the case of Vygotsky’s work, the subtractions involving his emphasis on dialectical historical materialism seem to be a prominent point highlighted by most authors, and this also brings consequences that extend beyond the North American context (Prestes, 2012; Tuleski, 2010, among others). In the bibliographic survey conducted by Mainardes and Pino in 2000, the authors comment on the reception and rapid diffusion, in 1980s Brazil, of the first Portuguese translations of Vygotskian texts, which were based on incomplete and fragmented American translations. According to the authors, the low quality of these early translations, coupled with a lack of understanding of the Marxist foundations, led to a wide diversity of readings — sometimes quite superficial — of Vygotsky’s work within the Brazilian academic landscape (Mainardes & Pino, 2000).

The example of the editions of Thought and Language leads us to examine the publication process of translations as a collective endeavor, situated in a historical moment and conditioned by the limitations of the publishing market. Thus, the consolidation of an edition of a work is permeated by conflicts that are not restricted to the translator’s skills. Beyond the excellent knowledge of the source and target languages, the broad linguistic and cultural repertoire, and the theoretical depth expected of the translator (and also of the reviser, who is often responsible for introducing new inaccuracies into the text), the working conditions imposed by publishers — such as tight deadlines and demands regarding textual style — are factors that compromise the quality of the final outcome, as Prestes (2012) explains.

From this perspective, it becomes evident that translational rigor goes beyond the technical dimension and demands a continuous effort to reconstruct meanings (Benjamin, 2008). Briefly, translating means seeking to express, as faithfully as possible, the multiple layers of meanings and senses — if we may put it this way — present in the original text. However, it must be considered that, on the one hand, a translation is only complete upon its reception, when read and reinterpreted by a reader who, dialectically, reflects and refracts it based on their own experience. On the other hand, it is necessary to acknowledge that the raw material of translation work remains the textual materiality of the original language (Prestes, 2012). We may attempt to grasp what the author meant to say, and even translate what they said, but, strictly speaking, what was said and how it was said exist fully only in their language of origin.

It is interesting to note that some of these premises regarding language, translation, and meaning-making are expressed by Vygotsky himself in “Thought and Word” (1934/2001). In the text, Vygotsky criticizes the associationist perspective in psychology, which is based on an assumed direct link that consciousness establishes between the word and the object it designates. From this perspective, “The word reminds us of its meaning in the same way that the coat of a familiar man reminds us of that man, or the external appearance of a building reminds us of its inhabitants” (Vigotsky, 1934/2001, p. 399). In contrast to this perspective, Vygotsky emphasizes that word meaning stabilizes throughout ontogenetic development and continues to evolve, transforming historically according to the word’s actual use in social relations. According to him:

Word meaning is inconstant. It changes in the process of child development. It also changes under different modes of the functioning of thought. It is a dynamic rather than a static formation. Establishing the mutability of meanings only became possible when the nature of meaning itself was correctly defined. This reveals itself first and foremost in generalization, which is contained as a central, fundamental moment in any word, given that any word is already a generalization.

(Vigotsky, 1934/2001, p. 408).

Considering the transformation of meanings in the translation of older texts is essential not only for understanding the polysemy of terms but also for appropriately addressing the diachronic transformation of the sense of words. From the perspective of language studies and philology, it is assumed that language, in its historicity, also changes and demands a historical contextualization of its use — a factor we also consider when reflecting on the translation of Vygotskian texts. Thus, terms such as mental retardation, debility, and defect, widely used in the studies of the time and also present in Vygotskian writings linked to the field of Russian defectology, may cause a sense of estrangement for contemporary readers. This is due not only to the anachronistic nature of the pejorative connotation they carry, but also because, today, they do not reflect the arguments upheld by Vygotsky himself. In various writings, the author advocates for a perspective on children with disabilities based on the potentialities of their development, considering the limitations that a deficit-based psychology could impose on the development of these children (Vigotsky, 1997). Similarly, acknowledging the socially constructed nature of language requires observing the context of utterance in the constitution of meanings.

“The Problem of Mental Retardation”: General and Methodological Considerations on the Editions of the Text

Although “The Problem of Mental Retardation” is a text about mental retardation, it should not be considered a purely defectological work. In this 1934 text, the theme serves as a starting point to expand on the centrality of the semantic dimension in the formation of consciousness, as we stated previously. In our view, this text cannot be read in isolation; it is essential to articulate it with Chapter 7 of Thought and Language, as the two interpenetrate each other. It is, therefore, a work that aims to discuss a central issue in Vygotsky’s psychological theory: the unity of intellect and affect — a problem related to meaning highlighted in Thought and Language (Silva, 2024)⁷.

The Portuguese translation was published as Obras Completas, Tomo 5: Fundamentos de Defectologia [Complete Works, Volume 5: Fundamentals of Defectology], organized by the Study Group on the Education of People with Disabilities from Vygotsky’s Perspective at the State University of Western Paraná (UNIOESTE), with the support of the Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC/SESU). The text was not translated directly from Russian; it was based on a Cuban Spanish edition. Even so, the authors emphasize in the editorial note the difficulty of translating the work from Cuban Spanish (1977 edition, 2nd reprint).

The English translation, in turn, is part of Volume 2 of the Collected Works and is preceded by a four-page text (“Foreword and Acknowledgments”) that comments on the translation, acknowledges the participation of several researchers in reading the early drafts, and highlights some difficulties in translating terms that were widely used in the 1920s and 1930s but are currently considered inappropriate:

Thus terms like mental backwardness (umstvennaia otstalost’), feeblemindedness (slaboumie) and oligophrenia, with its three degrees of mental retardation (debility, imbecility, and idiocy) were, perhaps, adequately descriptive and decorous in the 1920s, but they might seem somewhat outdated, unscientific, or even a touch unseemly and unkind today.

(Knox & Stevens, 1993, p. 7).

Indeed, the terminological changes in the semantic field of disabilities, thanks to the advances promoted by studies on inclusion, highlight the need for the use of appropriate terminology. After all, as Sassaki (2003, p. 160) reinforces, “it is in language that respect or discrimination toward people with disabilities is expressed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily”.

However, it must be emphasized that, despite using terms considered unscientific or insensitive by today’s standards, the ideas Vygotsky advocated in his texts dedicated to defectology introduced advancements relative to the thinking of his time, as well as principles that remain pertinent to contemporary disability studies. As Silva et al. (2024) explain, by considering that the same developmental laws apply to people with and without disabilities, and that social activity — especially educational intervention — is the source of development for higher psychological functions, Vygotsky provides the foundations for studies and interventions aimed at transforming developmental conditions in terms of potentiality.

The same rigor in presenting the terminology of the era is not found in the other editions of the work. In the introduction to the French edition, the editors and translators explain the reasons that led them to translate — and select — the texts that comprise the volume. As Koviljka Barisnikov and Geneviève Petitpierre, who were responsible for the publication, point out, in addition to their personal interest in studying the development of people with mental disabilities, there were, until then, very few translations of Vygotsky’s work into French. This edition, released by the commercial publisher Delachaux et Niestlé, brings together six texts extracted from L. S. Vygotsky’s original book entitled Fundamentals of Defectology, published in Moscow in 1983.

Finally, the Spanish translation does not present any introductory information or text from the editors or translators. Only the names of the translator, Julio Guillermo Blank, and the revisers, Napóleon Jesús Vidarte Vargas and Irina Filanova, are mentioned. The editorial information also includes the original title of the work in Russian, as well as the publisher: Sobranie sochinenii, Tom piatii, Osnovi defektologuii – Editorial Pedagógica, Moscú 1983.

For the present comparative study, we collated the four indicated versions. The analytical process of collation involves a detailed comparison among the chosen texts. During this process, the researcher, or translator, analyzes each segment of the texts and/or translated versions, identifying possible divergences, inconsistencies, or necessary adaptations.

In this study, to carry out this reading, we initially identified controversial terms that typically spark debate in Vygotskian circles, such as: dynamic semantic systems / dynamic systems of thought / dynamic systems of reasoning. From there, we conducted a comparative reading of the four versions, observing lexical, syntactic, and stylistic choices. In short, we analyzed how each translation handles complex syntactic constructions, sentence splitting, term adaptations, omissions, and/or additions

Regarding the order in which the results are presented, we first sought to understand the production and editorial context of each translation, beginning with a reading of the introductions and translators’ notes, which may or may not provide relevant information about their approaches and intentions. Next, we proceeded to the comparative reading of the texts, collating specific excerpts to identify variations and similarities.

It is important to emphasize that, for the purposes of this article, we did not consult the original Russian text. Our focus lies in analyzing the four Western versions/translations with the objective of inquiring into the reception of these texts and, consequently, of Vygotsky’s contributions and concepts. Soon, a new study — currently in the production phase — will be dedicated to a meticulous examination of the Russian text for comparative analysis purposes.

Analysis and Results of the Analytical Axes

The analysis was divided into three main categories: 4.1 syntactic reformulations, 4.2 omissions or additions, and 4.3 terminological differences. To present our analyses, we highlighted the compared excerpts in bold and marked omissions with double slashes (//). Furthermore, we chose to highlight some of the most representative examples from each category, without the intention of exhausting all possible variations. The main objective of this analysis is to discuss how these different translations were received by the academic community and how the translators’ choices can influence this reception..

Syntactic Reformulations

Syntactic reformulations are a common procedure in the translation process, since languages rarely exhibit an exact correspondence in terms of syntactic structure. This manifests itself in various adaptations that the translator must make, such as the inversion of terms, the repositioning of temporal phrases within the sentence, alterations in subject-verb order, and the use of specific relative pronouns or logical connectors to link ideas. Furthermore, in some cases, there is a need to split complex sentences and adjust punctuation to ensure greater clarity and fluency in the translated text. When unavoidable — whether due to limitations in the target language or inaccuracies in the source text — these changes aim to preserve the original meaning while respecting the particularities of each language. In other cases, however, syntactic alterations seem to be the result of stylistic choices that considerably alter the author’s diction. In such instances, we understand the importance of having these reformulations (and choices) accompanied by an explanatory note from the translators, in order to inform readers about the paths taken and allow them to explore alternative interpretative possibilities, within an author-translator-reader dialogue.

In this analytical axis, our analyses begin with the first sentence of the text. The opening sentence is fundamental because it establishes Vygotsky’s anchoring point regarding the relevance of the theme he intends to develop: the problem of mental retardation. In collating the aforementioned translations, we observed important nuances in the different versions of the paragraph, as highlighted below:

Table 1
Excerpt 1 – Opening

Language	Original text	Translation
Portuguese	O problema do atraso mental, até o momento atual, estabelece, em primeiro lugar e como fundamental, a deficiência intelectual da criança, sua debilidade mental. (2022 p. 329)	The problem of mental delay, up to the present moment, establishes, in the first place and as fundamental, the intellectual deficiency of the child, his mental debility.
English	Until recently, within the problem of mental retardation it has been the intellectual deficiency of a child, his feeble-mindedness, that has occupied the foreground as the basic feature. (1993 p. 220)
French	Quand on parle du problème de l’arriération mentale, on donne la priorité / / au défaut intellectuel de l’enfant, à sa débilité d’esprit / / (1994 p. 195).	When one speaks of the problem of mental retardation, priority is given / / to the intellectual defect of the child, to his debility of mind / /
Spanish	La insuficiencia intelectual del niño, su debilidad mental se colocan hasta hoy en primer plano en el problema del retraso mental como elemento fundamental del mismo. (1997 p. 249)	The intellectual insufficiency of the child, his mental debility are placed up to this day in the foreground in the problem of mental retardation as a fundamental element thereof.

These translations reveal different approaches in formulating the central concept of the text. This sentence in the Portuguese text presents a truncated syntactic construction, which hinders comprehension, especially when the term estabelece [establishes] is used to describe the child’s intellectual deficiency. The use of the verb estabelecer [to establish], for example, conveys the idea of a fixed determination, as if the problem of mental delay were a given, invariable, and universal reality. This choice produces a meaning that naturalizes intellectual deficiency as the essence of the child, erasing the historical and social character of the construction of this conception. It suggests, therefore, a conceptual fixation that contradicts the Vygotskian perspective itself, running the risk of adopting a reductionist and biologizing view, which understands the delay solely through the lens of an organic or intellectual deficit, disregarding the cultural and social mediations that, for Vygotsky, are central to human development.

The paragraph in French, on the other hand, adopts a reformulation that, although more fluid, explains the concept differently, stating: “When one speaks of the problem of mental retardation, priority is given to...”. When compared to the other translations, this reformulation shifts the meaning through the idea of priority and attenuates the structural character attributed to intellectual deficiency, especially when we look back at the medical-pedagogical traditions of the time. Consequently, the French text loses the critical density present in the other versions, reducing Vygotsky’s assertion to a mere circumstantial emphasis, instead of highlighting the historical process of naturalizing disability as the essence of the child — precisely the point Vygotsky sought to problematize.

While the Portuguese version suffers from a lack of clarity, the French version, by softening the construction, dilutes the emphasis on the concept of a fundamental element (rendered as basic feature in the English edition), an idea that is maintained in the English and Spanish versions. This demonstrates how syntactic reformulations can influence the interpretation and understanding of Vygotsky’s argument.

Omissions or Additions

In the translation process, divergences in the construction of the texts were observed, indicating the presence of significant omissions or additions that impact the comprehension of the original text, especially regarding the terms fantasy and imagination. In the paragraph exploring Lewin’s studies (Levin in French), Vygotsky’s words are translated in considerably different:

Table 2
Excerpt 2 – Omissions and terminological oscillation: “imagination” and “fantasy”

Language	Original text	Translation
English	Lewin considera a falta de fantasia como a característica essencial dessas crianças. / / (2022, p.341).	Lewin considers the lack of fantasy as the essential characteristic of these children //
	Lewin believes the most essential characteristic of these children is the absence of fantasy. This does not mean that they lack ideas (1993, p.228).
French	Levin estime que la caractéristique / / de ces enfants est leur manque d’imagination. Cela ne signifie pas qu’ils sont dépourvus de représentations (1994, p.211).	Levin believes that the characteristic / / of these children is their lack of imagination. This does not mean that they are devoid of representations
Spanish	Lewin considera que la característica más esencial de estos niños es la falta de fantasía. Esto no significa que carezcan de representaciones (1997, p.258).	Lewin considers that the most essential characteristic of these children is the lack of fantasy. This does not mean that they lack representations

It is worth noting that, while all the other versions maintain the term fantasy, in the French translation, imagination was chosen. This choice subtly alters the original meaning, as well as the omission of the word essential in the description of the characteristic, which also changes the meaning of the sentence

Another striking problem is the omission of the second sentence in the Portuguese translation, which constitutes an essential part of the passage. By stating that the lack of fantasy does not mean an absence of representations, Vygotsky (citing Lewin) introduces a fundamental distinction between two distinct psychological processes: on the one hand, the capacity to produce images and mental representations, linked to memory and to lived experience; on the other, the creative function of imagination, responsible for the combination and recombination of images for the elaboration of the new (Vigotsky, 2009). The suppression of this second sentence erases precisely this critical nuance, reducing the analysis to the deficit, when, in fact, the author seeks to differentiate qualitative levels of psychological functioning.

Furthermore, the French translation replaces fantasy with imagination, and eliminates the adjective essential. In Vygotsky, the terms fantasy and imagination appear, in most texts, as synonyms. However, in some writings, such as in “Paedology of the Adolescent”, fantasy assumes a more specific conceptual place, associated with daydreaming or with everything that departs further from reality (Vigotsky, 2025).

Generally speaking, in Vygotsky’s work, imagination is not posited as the realm of the illusory; rather, it is understood in a broader sense as the activity, function, and psychological system responsible for dialectically reorganizing cultural experiences on new foundations and expanding the horizon of the possible in terms of creation (Leopoldoff, Cordeiro, & Thévenaz, 2025). At this point, the translation becomes problematic: by losing the word essential, the weight of Lewin’s assertion regarding the absence of fantasy as a characteristic trait in children with mental retardation is attenuated. By replacing fantasy with imagination, conceptual precision is diluted, as it erases precisely the boundary Vygotsky establishes among representation, imagination, and creation. These translational shifts lead to a less rigorous reading of the Vygotskian argument, precisely at a point where he articulates his central thesis: imagination is not a mere accumulation of images, but a creative function that develops historically and constitutes the basis for creative thought, art, science, and social life.

Terminological Divergences

As presented above, it is interesting to reflect on how the translation of terms can alter the original meaning of a text and influence the interpretation of central concepts within a theoretical work. In the following example, we note that the term irreality [irrealidade] is replaced by imagination [imaginação] in the Brazilian translation (see Table 3).

Table 3
Excerpt 3 – Terminological oscillation: “imagination” and “irreality”

Language	Original text	Translation
Portuguese	Por exemplo, na esfera da imaginação, manifesta-se uma grande variabilidade e mobilidade dos sistemas, tal como nas esferas que ocorrem mais cedo e as mais tardias da atividade psíquica da personalidade (2022, p. 337)	For example, in the sphere of imagination, a great variability and mobility of systems manifests itself, just as in the spheres that occur earlier and the later ones of the psychological activity of the personality.
English	For example, in the area of irreality, a great fluidity and dynamics of systems is revealed, just as it is among the earlier and later spheres of psychological life in the personality (1993, p. 226).
French	Par exemple, dans le domaine de l’irréel se manifeste une grande mobilité des systèmes, de même que parmi les sphères plus jeunes et plus anciennes de la vie psychique de la personnalité (1994, p. 206).	For example, in the domain of the unreal a great mobility of systems manifests itself, just as among the younger and older spheres of the psychological life of the personality.
Spanish	Por ejemplo, en el campo de la irrealidad se manifiesta una gran fluidez y movilidad de los sistemas, igual que entre las esferas más tempranas y más tardías de la vida psíquica de la personalidad. (1997, p. 255).	For example, in the field of irreality a great fluidity and mobility of systems manifests itself, just as among the earlier and later spheres of the psychological life of the personality.

As explained in the previous subsection, the Vygotskian concept of imagination should not be confused with irreality; on the contrary, for Vygotsky, imagination is a concept deeply articulated with reality. These terminological differences reveal a significant variation in the interpretation of the text, potentially leading to divergent understandings of what Vygotsky intended to convey.

Another critical point arises when Vygotsky discusses Lewin’s anti-dialectical analysis of affect. Vygotsky emphasizes the dynamic basis of development and the interdependence between the psychological and the physical, criticizing Lewin for failing to consider physical development within psychological development. However, in the English translation, the expression “physical activity/life/development” was replaced by psychological life. This alteration might be the result of an editing or proofreading error, or it may reflect a problem in theoretical comprehension, raising questions about the proper reception of the text. Let us observe:

Table 4
Excerpt 4 – Terminological oscillation: “physical” and “psychological”

Language	Original text	Translation
Portuguese	Porém, Lewin não vê o segundo aspecto da dependência: o de que a própria base dinâmica varia no curso do desenvolvimento da atividade física e, por sua vez, mostra a dependência das variações que a consciência sofre de modo geral (2022, p. 345).	However, Lewin does not see the second aspect of the dependence: that the dynamic basis itself varies in the course of the development of physical activity and, in turn, displays the dependence on the variations that consciousness undergoes in general.
English	But Lewin does not see the second side of that dependence, that is, that the dynamic basis itself alters during the development of the psychological life and, in its turn, displays its dependence on those changes which the whole consciousness experiences (1993, p. 231).
French	Mais Levin ne prend pas en compte l’autre aspect de cette dépendance, à savoir que la base dynamique elle-même se modifie au cours du développement physique et dépend de l’ensemble des changements subis pas la conscience (1994, p. 216).	But Levin does not take into account the other aspect of this dependence, namely that the dynamic basis itself modifies in the course of physical development and depends on the entirety of the changes undergone by consciousness.
Spanish	Pero Lewin no ve el segundo aspecto de la dependencia, el hecho de que la base dinámica se modifica en el curso del desarrollo de la vida física y, a su vez, muestra una dependencia de los cambios que experimenta la conciencia en su totalidad (1997, p. 261)	But Lewin does not see the second aspect of the dependence, the fact that the dynamic basis modifies in the course of the development of physical life and, in turn, displays a dependence on the changes that consciousness experiences in its entirety.

In the following passage, Vygotsky borrows from physics the metaphor of thought as a prism that refracts actions and events, transforming them through consciousness — a process that lies at the foundation of his concept of perezhivanie. However, the translations diverge conceptually from what Vygotsky intended to convey. Let us observe:

Tabela 5
Excerpt 5 – The prism metaphor

Language	Original text	Translation
Portuguese	A atividade refratada através do prisma do pensamento converte-se já em outra atividade compreendida, interiorizada e, portanto, voluntária e livre, ou seja, que se encontra em uma relação de princípio com respeito à situação, distinta à que se encontra a atividade diretamente condicionada pela situação e que não passou por essa variação direta e inversa da dinâmica. (2022, p. 353)	The activity refracted through the prism of thought has already been converted into another activity, understood, internalized, and, therefore, voluntary and free; that is, it is found in a relationship of principle with respect to the situation, distinct from that of the activity directly conditioned by the situation and which has not gone through this direct and inverse variation of the dynamics.
English	An action reflected through the prism of thought has already been transformed into a different action, one that is meaningful, conscious, and consequently free and voluntary; that is, it stands in a different general relationship to the situation from action which is directly conditioned by the situation and which has not gone through the direct and reverse transformation of dynamics. (1993, p. 235)
French	L’action, passée à travers le crible de la pensée, se transforme en une autre action, qui est réfléchie. Cette nouvelle action est volontaire et libre, elle entretient un autre rapport à la situation que n’avait l’action directement conditionnée par la situation, et qui n’était pas encore passée à travers la transformation directe et la transformation inverse de la dynamique (1994, p. 226 e 227)	The action, having passed through the sieve of thought, transforms into another action, which is reflected upon. This new action is voluntary and free; it maintains a different relationship to the situation than the action directly conditioned by the situation had, and which had not yet passed through the direct and inverse transformation of the dynamics.
Spanish	La action, refractada a través del prisma del pensamiento, se transforma ya en otra acción, atribuida de sentido, consciente, y, por tanto, voluntaria y libre, es decir, que está en una relación esencialmente distinta con la situación, que la acción directamente condicionada por la situación y que no ha pasado a través de esa transformación directa e inversa de la dinámica. (1997, p. 267)	The action, refracted through the prism of thought, is already transformed into another action, imbued with sense, conscious, and, therefore, voluntary and free; that is, it is in an essentially distinct relationship with the situation, than the action directly conditioned by the situation and which has not passed through that direct and inverse transformation of the dynamics.

As presented above, Vygotsky employs the metaphor of thought as a prism that refracts actions and events, qualitatively transforming them as they pass through consciousness — a process that underpins his concept of perezhivanie (Vigotsky, 2018). This metaphor highlights not merely a filtering of contents, but a genuine dynamic reorganization that alters the relationship of the action to the situation. The Portuguese and Spanish translations seem to preserve this image of the prism and refraction, reinforcing the idea of a dialectical transformation of experience in consciousness. The French translation, however, by opting for the metaphor of a sieve (crible), shifts the meaning: what in Vygotsky appears as refraction and recomposition becomes simple filtering, as if thought merely selected or sifted the elements of the action. In the English version, moreover, there is a conceptual error that dismantles the constructed metaphor. A prism does not reflect the images of the world like a mirror; it allows light to penetrate, transforming it, and it is precisely in this process of refraction that the key to the Vygotskian explanation is found: the action, upon passing through the prism of thought, modifies and is simultaneously modified, altering developmental processes insofar as it is also transformed by them. This translation attenuates the conceptual density of the passage and may induce an impoverished understanding of the transformative dimension that lies at the core of the Vygotskian notion of perezhivanie.

In a subsequent passage, a divergence is observed in the use of terms such as dynamic semantic systems in the Portuguese and Spanish versions, whereas the English and French versions opt for dynamic reasoning systems and systèmes dynamiques de pensée (dynamic systems of thought), respectively. These choices lead to different understandings and prompt timely reflections. After all, what does the text mean to convey? Is it dealing with the unity of semantic systems (Portuguese and Spanish versions), the unity of dynamic reasoning systems (English), or even dynamic systems I (French)? The choices are disparate and some are inconsistent with the text itself).

Table 6
Excerpt 6 – On the unity of dynamic systems

Language	Original text	Translation
Portuguese	Em tudo o que constitui um dos postulados mais centrais de nossa teoria, na teoria sobre as funções psicológicas superiores, está contida por inteiro a unidade dos sistemas dinâmicos semânticos. A função interiorizada adquire também outras possibilidades de atividade. Interiorizar significa, em certa medida, dominar. (2022, p. 354).	In all that constitutes one of the most central postulates of our theory, in the theory of higher psychological functions, the unity of dynamic semantic systems is entirely contained. The internalized function also acquires other possibilities for activity. To internalize means, to a certain extent, to dominate.
English	In all of this (which is one of the most central propositions of our theory, indeed in the study of the higher psychological functions), the unity of the dynamic reasoning systems is wholly included. The realization of function gains other possibilities for action. In large part to realize means to dominate. (1993, p. 236)
French	L’unité des systèmes dynamiques de pensée est prise en compte, in extenso, dans une des prémisses centrales de notre théorie, c’est-à-dire dans l’étude des fonctions psychiques supérieures. La fonction de connaissance ouvre de nouvelles possibilités d’action. Connaître signifie jusqu’à un certain point maîtriser. (1994, p. 228)	The unity of dynamic systems of thought is taken into account, in extenso, in one of the central premises of our theory, that is to say, in the study of higher psychological functions. The function of knowledge opens up new possibilities for action. To know means, to a certain point, to master.
Spanish	En todo lo que constituye uno de los principios básicos de nuestra teoría, es decir, en el estudio sobre las funciones psicológicas superiores, está inserta por entero la unidad de los sistemas dinámicos semánticos. Una función consciente adquiere también distintas posibilidades de acción. Tomar conciencia significa en cierta medida dominar. (1997, p. 268)	In all that constitutes one of the basic principles of our theory, that is, in the study of higher psychological functions, the unity of dynamic semantic systems is entirely inserted. A conscious function also acquires distinct possibilities for action. To become conscious means, to a certain extent, to dominate.

The problem of the unity of dynamic semantic systems — or whatever term the author actually intended to use — assumes greater complexity when we articulate the first sentence of the paragraph with the second and arrive at the discussion concerning the intellect-affect relationship in terms of a dynamic unity. Here, the intellect-affect relationship is problematized, alongside the problem of meaning and the formation of higher psychological functions, intertwined with the constitution of consciousness (a term explicitly mentioned only in the Spanish version) and the expansion of possibilities for action. In this case, collating the translations reveals divergent implications and leaves the reader confused regarding the author’s intention.

In the English version, the choice of the term reasoning seems to clash with the other translations as well as with the dialectical argument of the intellect-affect unity upheld by Vygotsky throughout the text, in addition to being a word scarcely used in his work. Furthermore, in this same translation, the choice of to realize — which could be interpreted as dar-se conta [to become aware], perceber [to perceive], or tomar consciência [to become conscious] — results in the omission of the explicit term consciousness (present in the previous excerpt; see Table 5), thereby attenuating the articulation between the intellect-affect dynamics and consciousness.

The French option for systèmes dynamiques de pensée [dynamic systems of thought], on the other hand, proves equally problematic, as it is steeped in a “Cartesianism” criticized by Vygotsky throughout the text. Furthermore, this version presents two other obstacles: the reference to the function of knowledge, which is incompatible with Vygotskian epistemology — given that knowledge is not a function — and the choice of connaître [to know], which obviously diverges from the other versions and fails to clarify for the reader what the author actually intends to convey.

In analyzing the composition of the first paragraph, the Spanish and Portuguese versions opt for the term unity of dynamic semantic systems, which must be linked to the intellect-affect relationship catalyzed, if we may put it this way, in word meaning. Here, we encounter the Vygotskian argument that word meaning is a constitutive element of consciousness, in accordance with the thesis upheld in Chapter 7 of Thought and Word (Vigotsky, 2024). However, the two translations differ in the subsequent sentence of the paragraph. In Portuguese, the choice of função interiorizada [internalized function] and interiorizar [to internalize] is the one that deviates the most from the other translations, introducing a specific term formed by a nominalized verb indicating the process by which a supposedly external function would become internal. Was internalization a concept developed (or even evoked) by Vygotsky in this passage? Or was it tomar conciencia [to become conscious], as chosen by the Spanish version, which inserts the terms función consciente [conscious function] and tomar conciencia [to become conscious]?

It is not possible to answer these inquiries. The diverse and divergent translations lead the reader to multiple conceptual frameworks — making it impossible to state what was actually proposed by the author. In collating the translations, these frameworks, like pieces of glass in a kaleidoscope, radically change their configuration as they move, producing distinct distortions and effects that are often inconsistent with the epistemology assumed and defended by Vygotsky throughout the text.

Based on the analysis of the presented axes, we note that the differences in the translations of Vygotsky’s text analyzed herein reflect more than stylistic or grammatical choices; they reveal theoretical interpretations that can significantly shape the reception of his ideas within the academic field. Syntactic reformulations, omissions, and terminological alterations not only affect the clarity and fluency of the text, but also influence the understanding of central concepts, such as the unity of dynamic semantic systems, perezhivanie, and the prism of thought. Our analysis underscores the importance of redoubled care in the translation process, especially regarding fidelity to the original meaning and the preservation of the author’s theoretical richness.

Final Considerations

As we move toward the final considerations of this article, it is imperative to revisit the centrality of the text “The Problem of Mental Retardation” in Vygotsky’s work, not merely as an object of analysis, but as an interpretive key to understanding his theoretical project in its most mature phase. Undoubtedly, the text reveals a decisive turning point, in which the issue of disability is elevated to the status of a privileged pathway for grasping the general laws of human development.

Vygotsky takes a clear stance on complex issues: language, consciousness, and development. And, in this sense, “The Problem of Mental Retardation” asserts itself as a strategic text, whose contributions permeate the entirety of Vygotsky’s work and offer decisive foundations for the fields of education and psychology.

It is precisely based on this understanding that this article analyzed four versions of the same text, published over a span of approximately thirty years. We sought to demonstrate how different translational operations impact the transmission of his concepts and, consequently, the possibilities of grasping their theoretical scope..

The analyses indicate the possibility of terminological fluctuations, especially within clusters of terms such as imagination/imaginaire, fantasy, unreal, ideas, and representations, as well as in the terms used to refer to mental retardation. Furthermore, in collating the works, we observed that very few notes concerning the text were included; generally, the publication date is identified, but the context and the date the Russian text was written are not mentioned in the translations. In the introductions to the editions, there are general discussions about the book, but, with the exception of the English version, the criteria for terminological choices are not made explicit.

As we have seen, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and misconceptions constitute recurrent features in how The Problem of Mental Retardation was handled across the different versions analyzed in this article. Given this scenario, some possible solutions for future translations would be the use of explanatory notes and critical commentary in new editions of Vygotsky’s texts. This resource is especially necessary in the case of the author’s theoretically complex writings, as is the case with the present text, since it helps bring his ideas closer to contemporary readers without distorting the original content. Critical commentary, in this sense, ensures rigor in syntactic and terminological choices, in addition to clarifying references to other authors and incomplete or inaccurate citations, as well as justifying the use of terms now considered outdated.

The recurrent difficulties in consolidating texts — such as divergences among different Russian editions or between manuscripts and subsequently published versions — coupled with the need for historical and bibliographic contextualization, could be addressed through annotated editions. However, this resource was not adopted in the versions analyzed herein. In light of this, the formation of working groups with an in-depth mastery of Vygotskian theory, its historical context, and the state of the art of research from that era becomes indispensable in order to enable more rigorous translations. Even so, publishing certain materials remains a challenge, as it requires the meticulous review of original manuscripts and the production of new translations — a time-consuming and costly process that holds little appeal for commercial publishers, since it entails high costs and, consequently, limits large-scale circulation (van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2011).

Another fundamental strategy consists of a systematic comparison among different translated versions of Vygotsky’s work. Collating texts not only contributes to the rigor of the translation process but also stands as a critical exercise that fosters the comprehension and appropriate reception of the works. In this sense, the formation of multilingual groups of researchers dedicated to editorial work proves decisive in reducing misunderstandings when reading translations and in highlighting passages that gain or lose relevant meanings in the movement of linguistic transposition. Nevertheless, this practice faces considerable challenges, as it demands high qualifications and extended periods of time for developing debates, conducting revisions, and finalizing annotated editions.

• Use of AI:
  While writing this article, the authors used the Artificial Intelligence (AI) DeepL, between July and August 2026, for the purpose of assisting in drafting the abstracts in English and Spanish. The authors declare that they reviewed, validated, edited, and supervised the final text, ensuring its originality, accuracy, and ethical integrity, and assume full responsibility for the content of the publication.
• Text review:
  Bibliographic standardization (APA 7th Ed.), preparation, and textual review in Portuguese: Reinaldo Rodrigues Monção Junior [e-mail]
  English Version: Francisco Toledo Corrêa [e-mail]
• 1
  The group was formed by researchers Bernard Schneuwly (UNIGE), Daniele Nunes Henrique Silva (UnB), Irina Leopoldoff (UNIGE) — coordinators —, Christiane Moro (UNIGE), Thérèse Thévenaz (UNIGE), Daniel Martin (HEPL – Lausanne), Anne Clerc-Georgy (HEPL – Lausanne), Glaís Sales Cordeiro (UNIGE), Luciane Maria Schlindwein (UFSC), Lavinia Magiolino (Unicamp), Jairo Werner (UFF), Diego di Massi (University of Milan), Simone Maria Dantas-Longhi (UFV), and Flavia Fazion (UnB).
• 2
  Various spellings can be adopted to transliterate the name Лев Семёнович Выготский into the Latin alphabet. In English works, the use of Vygotsky predominates; in Spanish, Vygotski; in French, Vigotski or Vigotskij. While the original Portuguese version of this article opted for the spelling Vigotski (which is widely adopted in recent Brazilian Portuguese translations), in this English version we use the spelling Vygotsky throughout the text to align with international conventions. In citations, however, we use the spelling according to the consulted work.
• 3
  In the original, Problema umstvennoi otstalosti. In Portuguese, unlike the other analyzed translations, the chosen title was O problema do atraso mental [The problem of mental delay].
• 4
  The initial reflections that gave rise to this article were presented at the IX International Seminar “Vygotskij – Beyond Inclusion Towards Transformative Education”, held in Turin, Italy (Dantas-Longhi, Fazion, & Silva, 2024). Recently, we gained access to the Italian translation of this same text and to a new French translation, currently in press, which will be the object of analysis in a future study.
• 5
  In Portuguese, two main versions of this work are in circulation. The first, an abridged version, was published by Editora Martins Fontes in 1987 under the title Pensamento e Linguagem [Thought and Language]. The second, a more comprehensive version, was released by the same publisher in 2001 under the title A Construção do Pensamento e da Linguagem [The Construction of Thought and Language]. Although our studies rely on this unabridged version, we have chosen in this article to refer to the work Myshlenie i rech as Thought and Language, as it is the most widespread and established title in the international landscape, also present in other Western languages, such as Thought and Language (first North American edition), Pensiero e linguaggio (Italian), and Pensée et langage (French).
• 6
  Schneuwly and Leopoldoff (2022, p. 18) hypothesize that the successful reception of Thought and Language in the United States may have been influenced by an academic context in which Deweyan pragmatism was in vogue, which fostered a sociocultural reading of Vygotsky’s work within the American landscape. According to the authors, this is a mistaken reading.
• 7
  This reading of the text was explored in greater depth by Silva (2024), during the conference presentation “La pathologie est la clé pour comprendre le développement, tandis que le développement est la clé pour comprendre les changements pathologiques : une présentation chronologique des textes de la défectologie de Vygotskij et de leurs principes conceptuels” [Pathology is the key to understanding development, while development is the key to understanding pathological changes: A chronological presentation of Vygotsky’s texts on defectology and their conceptual principles], delivered at the IX International Vygotsky Seminar (SIV) in Turin, Italy.

Research data availability:

The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.

References

• Benjamin, W. (2008). A tarefa do tradutor. In Castello Branco, L. (Org.), A tarefa do tradutor de Walter Benjamin: quatro traduções para o português Editora UFMG.
• Dantas-Longhi, S. M., Fazion, F., Silva, D. N. H. (2024) Défis, divergences et réflexions dans les traductions du texte ‘Le problème du retard mental’. In IX International Vygotsky Seminar - Beyond inclusion towards transformative education - Book of abstracts (pp. 120-122). Pensa MultiMedia. https://iris.univr.it/retrieve/d996024f-30a0-40ca-9f7c-bfb453121e47/book%20of%20abstract_DEF%20%281%29.pdf
  » https://iris.univr.it/retrieve/d996024f-30a0-40ca-9f7c-bfb453121e47/book%20of%20abstract_DEF%20%281%29.pdf
• Duarte, N. (2000). Vigotski e o “aprender a aprender”: crítica às apropriações neoliberais e pós-modernas da teoria vigotskiana Autores Associados.
• Fraser, J., & Yasnitsky, A. (2016). Deconstructing Vygotsky’s victimization narrative: A re-examination of the “Stalinist suppression” of Vygotskian theory. In A. Yasnitsky, A. & Van der Veer, R. (Orgs.). Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies Routledge.
• Hanfmann, E., & Vakar, G. (1962). Translator’s preface. In Vygotsky, L. S., Thought and language Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Knox, A., & Stevens, B. (1993). Foreword and acknowledgements. In Vygotsky, L. S. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 2: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) Springer Science & Business Media.
• Leopoldoff, I., Cordeiro, G., & Thévenaz, T. (2025). Imaginação em desenvolvimento. In Schneuwly, B., Leopoldoff, I., & Silva, D. (Orgs.) Imaginação: textos escolhidos Mercado de Letras.
• Mainardes, J., & Pino, A. (2000). Publicações brasileiras na perspectiva vigotskiana. Educação & Sociedade, 21(71), pp. 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302000000200012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302000000200012
• Marques, P. N. (2018). “Young” Vygotsky: Unpublished works about art and the role of artistic creation in child development. Educação e Pesquisa, 44, e183267. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201844183267
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201844183267
• Mecacci, L. (1990). L. S. Edizioni e traduzioni di “Pensiero e linguaggio”. In Vygotskij, L. S. Pensiero e linguaggio Laterza & Figli Spa.
• Mendonça, F. L. R., Silva, D. S., Barbosa-Andrade, F. S., & Silva, D. N. H. (2020). Mediações em sala de aula na construção do conhecimento em escolas inclusivas. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 24, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392020193222
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392020193222
• Prestes, Z. R. (2012). Quando não é quase a mesma coisa: traduções de Lev Semionovitch Vigotski no Brasil Autores Associados.
• Sassaki, R. K. (2003). Terminologia sobre deficiência na era da inclusão. In V. Vivarta, V. (Coord.) Mídia e deficiência Andi; Fundação Banco do Brasil.
• Schneuwly, B., & Leopoldoff, I. (2022). Vygotskij, o trabalho do professor e a zona de desenvolvimento próximo. Educação & Realidade, 47, e116630. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-6236116630vs01
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-6236116630vs01
• Silva, D. N. H., et al. (2024). 100 anos de estudos em defectologia de L. S. Vigotski e seus desdobramentos contemporâneos. Revista Psicopedagógica, 41(124), pp. 1-5. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84862024000100001
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84862024000100001
• Silva, D. N. H. (2024). Vygotsky’s legacy in Defectology: A reflection on its current relevance. In IX International Vygotsky Seminar — Beyond inclusion towards transformative education — Book of abstracts (pp. 14). Pensa MultiMedia, 2024. https://iris.univr.it/retrieve/d996024f-30a0-40ca-9f7c-bfb453121e47/book%20of%20abstract_DEF%20%281%29.pdf
  » https://iris.univr.it/retrieve/d996024f-30a0-40ca-9f7c-bfb453121e47/book%20of%20abstract_DEF%20%281%29.pdf
• Tuleski, S. C. (2000). Para ler Vygotski: Recuperando a historicidade perdida. In Anais da 23ª Reunião Anual da ANPEd (pp. 89-110). ANPEd.
• Van der Veer, R., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky in English: What still needs to be done. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, pp. 475-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9172-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9172-9
• Van der Veer, R., & Yasnitsky, A. (2016). Vygotsky the published: Who wrote Vygotsky and what Vygotsky actually wrote. In Yasnitsky, A., & van der Veer, R. (Orgs.). Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies Routledge.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2001 [1934]). Pensamento e linguagem Martins Fontes.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2001). A construção do pensamento e da linguagem Martins Fontes.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2018). Sete aulas de L. S. Vigotski sobre os fundamentos da pedologia (Z. Prestes, Trad.). E-Papers.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2022). Obras completas – Tomo cinco: fundamentos de defectologia Edunioeste.
• Vigotski, L. S. (2025). Imaginação e atividade criadora na infância: Ensaio psicológico. In Schneuwly, B, Leopoldoff, I, & D. Silva, D. (Orgs.). Imaginação: textos escolhidos Mercado de Letras.
• Vygotski, L. S. (1927/1997). El defecto y la compensación. Obras escogidas – Tomo V: fundamentos de defectología Visor Dis.
• Vygotski, L. S. (1929/1997). Introducción. Los problemas fundamentales de la defectologia contemporánea. Obras escogidas – Tomo V: fundamentos de defectología Visor Dis.
• Vygotski, L. S. (1931/1997). La colectividad como factor de desarrollo del niño deficiente. Obras escogidas – Tomo V: fundamentos de defectología Visor Dis.
• Vygotski, L. S. (1935/1997). El problema del retraso mental. Obras escogidas — Tomo V: fundamentos de defectología Visor Dis.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language MIT Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Harvard University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1993 [1896-1934]). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 2: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) Springer Science & Business Media.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1994 [1928-1934]). Défectologie et déficience mentale Delachaux et Niestlé.
• Yasnitsky, A. (2012). The complete works of L. S. Vygotsky: PsyAnima complete Vygotsky project. Psikhologicheski Jurnal Dubna, 3, pp. 144-148. https://psyanima.su/journal/2012/3/2012n3a6/2012n3a6.2.pdf
  » https://psyanima.su/journal/2012/3/2012n3a6/2012n3a6.2.pdf

Edited by

• Responsible Editor:
  Chantal Medaets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7834-3834

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  24 Aug 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  26 Aug 2025
• Reviewed
  05 May 2026
• Accepted
  14 May 2026