[Xmca-l] Re: "Context" or Object of activity
Alfredo Jornet Gil
a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
Wed Jan 31 17:09:58 PST 2018
Dear Alexander,
thanks for your thoughtful and valuable contribution. I would like to note, however, that everyone contributing here does so out of genuine and real interest, and not out of arbitrary fantasy, even if with that what is meant is to make the point of the necessity and unity of the object (versus the arbitrariness of signs or thoughts outside of real practical activity). The practical activity of typing this or this other idea is as real for one idea as it is for the other one. And in fact, it was Spinoza who noted that "inadequate and confused ideas follow by the same necessity as adequate, or clear and distinct, ideas". I am just adding this to make clear that, while we may more or less passionately argue for one or another idea, it is the ideas, and not the authors of the ideas, that are at stake. I am sure you already were in agreement, so apologies if I am just stating what already was obvious to all.
That said, I am very sympathetic to the idea that "context", if it is external in the sense of arbitrary, does not add much to our understanding. But Andy, how does your point about "unbounded abstraction" connect to this?
Alfredo
________________________________
From: Alexander Simakin <alexander.simakin@yahoo.com>
Sent: 01 February 2018 00:13
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Haydi Zulfei ; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; David Kellogg; Alexander Surmava
Cc: Huw Lloyd
Subject: Re: "Context" or Object of activity
Dear Colleagues,
For me as for a person who passed the school of real communication with Il'enkov, it also seems that the concept of the object of activity is much more concrete than the so-called “context”. And this is not an arbitrary fantasy of the author of the post, who compared the term “context” with the term “object” of object-oriented activity. This is a conclusion from the whole history of philosophy (= theoretical psychology). And above all, this is the conclusion from Spinoza and Fichte, the conclusion made by Marx and formulated by him in the theses on Feuerbach. Before real activity, in abstraction from activity there is no thinking subject, nor its object, for the subject-object relationship itself makes sense only as a relation of the two poles of ACTIVITY. And, by the way, the specific "semantization", the acquisition by some external things of some meaning different from their own natural nature, before beginning to occur in the supposedly arbitrary imagination of the subject, should begin to occur in the activity itself. So the value of a spoon (shovel) as a means for carrying liquid or loose bodies does not arise in the arbitrary imagination of the subject, but in the real activity of man, in digging and eating. Similarly, the ax does not acquire its importance as a tool for cutting trees by the blacksmith or the master for the manufacture of stone axes, but in the activities of the woodcutter.
Yours faithfully,
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 2:54:30 PM GMT+3, Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> wrote:
...for me "context" is an abstraction from the world: a
> context of culture is the ensemble of relations in the
> world which we choose to semanticize in a given language,
> and a context of situation is the ensemble of relations
> in the world which we choose to semanticize in a single
> text.
You can attribute any meaning to a theoretically sterile concept of context, as you like "semanticize" it.
From the point of view of Marxism, in the logic of which Vygotsky WANTED to theorize, and Leontiev and Ilyenkov really theorized, the subject does not arbitrarily "semantify" his objects, that is, natural things, things created by human labor and social relations, but actually act with them in accordance with their nature.
Context is not a magical entity that affects the subject "placed in this context" in an incomprehensible magical way. Anything can "influence" the subject if and only if the subject acts with this object. In other words, to be exposed you must act yourself. Therefore, from an extremely broad and theoretically vague idea of the "context" (as something that "surrounds" the passive subject and for some reason affects it), we are forced to isolate what the subject really interacts with, what he is working on, that is, we must distinguish the concept of the object of activity, the real PREDMET DEYATELNOSTI. Everything that surrounds the subject, but with which he actively does not interact, any "context" with which the subject is not active does not exist for the subject at all, just as before the discovery of Becquerel the radioactive rays did not exist for human consciousness or "psyche", although, of course really "surrounded" him whenever he had carelessness to touch the salts of uranium or radium or to carry their crystals in his pocket.
All this applies not only to the "hard things" surrounding us, but also to such soft and delicate matter as social relations. Those relationships that the subject is not able to at least try to somehow change by their own activity in them, for the subject as it does not exist at all, they, as Spinoza would say, are not adequately realized. Of course, the child is able to remember such little things as words (signs), say that now the president of the United States is Donald Trump. But really realizing the beauty of this political (or medical) fact, he will only be able to get involved in real relations with the political machine of the state through participation in elections or other forms of political activism, when his own activity will face fences erected by an elderly gentleman with an outstanding hairdo not only on the Mexican border, but, say, between him and the health care system.
Therefore, practical implications for the practical teacher and psychologist are not numerous "contexts", the boundaries of which can only be established by the arbitrariness of the authors of treatises on the context, but the real objects, what our activities really deal with, what it stumbles upon and what it comes to.
Sasha
________________________________
От: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Кому: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Отправлено: среда, 31 января 2018 3:11
Тема: [Xmca-l] Re: Bronfennbrenner discussion
You can say that "context" is an "abstraction from the
world" if you like. But as Mike has shown, it is an
unbounded abstraction. E.G. a new twist in Cold War
diplomacy can skittle a 4thD project and/or open a new
project for kids in San Diego and Moscow.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 31/01/2018 10:52 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Andy--I don't understand how "context" means "the world".
> That's what Malinowski thought. But I'm a linguist, and
> for me "context" is an abstraction from the world: a
> context of culture is the ensemble of relations in the
> world which we choose to semanticize in a given language,
> and a context of situation is the ensemble of relations
> in the world which we choose to semanticize in a single
> text. But even if you are not a linguist, doesn't a
> "context" always mean something that goes with a text,
> like chili con carne goes with meat?
>
> dk
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Recent Article in /Mind, Culture, and Activity/ 24 (4)
> 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A
> Commentary on “Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to
> Developmental Change”'
>
> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> Mike, I have never been a reader of Bronfennbrenner, so my
> comments may be immaterial here and I am happy if you and
> others simply let them go through to the 'keeper (i.e.,
> catcher).
>
> You will recall that in my "Interdisciplinary" book I
> appreciated your work, but criticised it for your claim to
> include "context" in the "unit of analysis" on the basis
> that "context" was an "open ended totality" and to include
> it in the "unit of analysis" was to destroy the very
> idea of
> a "unit."
>
> A point of agreement between us though has been the
> need for
> what we both call a "meso-level" unit between the
> individual
> action and the world, and that my use of "project" to name
> this meso-level unit, and that the 5thD project was such a
> unit, persisting for more than an individual's
> lifetime and
> escaping the control of the founder, but yet falling short
> of macro-level units like the economy, science, the
> nation, etc.
>
> Yjro is quite right when he said "the context is the
> activity,", or rather "the activities." "The activity"
> is of
> course the project. But here Yrjo is being true to
> analysis
> by units. He is suggesting that the world is best
> conceived
> as being made up of activities (I would say "projects").
>
> To claim to include the "context" (which as you know means
> "the world") *in* the unit which makes up the world,
> is the
> same logical fallacy as asking whether "I always lie" is a
> lie, and destroy the whole point of analysis by units,
> which
> is to approach understanding infinite totalities by
> means of
> little things that you can grasp, which none the less
> characterise the whole. This unit, projects, is mediating
> between the individual action and the world.
>
> The problem is, I think, Yrjo's redefinition of "unit of
> analysis" as (according to some of his students) "the unit
> to be analysed," which I characterise as that list you
> make
> up, of everything you're going to put in your suitcase,
> which you might need on your journey. This was *not*
> Vygotsky's idea, or that of Goethe, Hegel or Marx.
>
> Whatever the problem, what happens depends on the context.
> How do you conceive of the context? by units. The
> context is
> a totality not part of a unit.
>
> :)
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> On 31/01/2018 9:45 AM, mike cole wrote:
> > Hi Jon-
> >
> > There are obviously a ton of issues to discuss
> in your article. I
> > guess that my paper on using his ideas as part of
> the process of designing
> > activities for kids in university-community
> partnerships is
> > an example of inappropriate mis-appropriations. I'm
> not sure. If I need a
> > defense its that I thought the ideas as I understood
> them useful, but I was
> > not testing his formulations in the same way you are
> concerned to do, but
> > using (some of) them for planning, analysis, and
> interpretation.
> >
> > While trying to sort that out, I'll just make a
> couple of observations.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> <jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu> <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, Martin, there always is culture within the
> microsystem--it's the only
> >> place in which culture is experienced.
> Microsystems are always embedded
> >> within culture (I'd add always within multiple
> cultures, but I don't think
> >> that Urie ever wrote that).
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Jonathan Tudge
> >>
> >> Professor
> >> Office: 155 Stone
> >>
> >> Our work on gratitude:
> http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> >>
> >> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas, L.
> (Eds.) Developing
> >> gratitude in children and adolescents
> >>
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude-
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude->
> >> in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> >> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> >>
> >> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> >>
> >> Mailing address:
> >> 248 Stone Building
> >> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> >> PO Box 26170
> >> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> >> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> >> USA
> >>
> >> phone (336) 223-6181
> >> fax (336) 334-5076
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Martin Packer
> <mpacker@cantab.net<mailto:mpacker@cantab.net> <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net<mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wow, very graphic! At first I thought my
> microsystem had exploded! :)
> >>>
> >>> The 20,000 dollar question for me has always been,
> why is culture in the
> >>> macrosystem? Is there no culture in my here-&-now
> interactions with other
> >>> people? (Well, perhaps in my case not!)
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> <jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu> <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings, Martin,
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope that this works (taken from a powerpoint
> presentation).
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan Tudge
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor
> >>>> Office: 155 Stone
> >>>>
> >>>> Our work on gratitude:
> http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> >>>>
> >>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> L. (Eds.) Developing
> >>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> >>>>
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> >>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> >>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> >>>>
> >>>> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mailing address:
> >>>> 248 Stone Building
> >>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> >>>> PO Box 26170
> >>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> >>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> >>>> USA
> >>>>
> >>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> >>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Martin Packer
> <mpacker@cantab.net<mailto:mpacker@cantab.net> <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net<mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Jon,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be possible for you to post here the
> figure you mentioned in
> >>> your
> >>>>> message, page 69 of your book?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or
> Dr. Lowie or discuss
> >>>>> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I
> become at once aware that
> >> my
> >>>>> partner does not understand anything in the
> matter, and I end usually
> >>> with
> >>>>> the feeling that this also applies to myself”
> (Malinowski, 1930)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Jonathan Tudge
> <jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu> <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, Mike,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are a couple of problems with the 2005
> book. One is that the
> >>>>> papers
> >>>>>> are drawn from UB's writings from the 1970s to
> the early part of this
> >>>>>> century. As is true of Vygotsky's writings
> (and probably any
> >> theorist
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>> wrote over a significant span of time) it's
> really important to know
> >>> the
> >>>>>> date of publication. The other problem is that
> at least one of the
> >>>>>> chapters is incomplete, and there are errors in
> at least one other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the concentric circles or the
> matrioshka--they're both
> >> excellent
> >>>>>> examples of how powerful metaphors can go
> powerfully wrong! Both are
> >>>>>> utterly misleading, in that they really focus
> attention on the
> >>> different
> >>>>>> layers of context (and even then don't make
> sense--the mesosystem
> >>>>> consists
> >>>>>> of overlapping circles, as in a Venn diagram).
> Nonetheless, you're
> >>>>>> right--UB continued to use the metaphor in his
> final publications.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, his theory really developed a lot from
> the 1970s onwards
> >> (see
> >>>>> Rosa
> >>>>>> and Tudge, 2013; Tudge, 2013), and from the
> early 1990s onwards
> >>> "proximal
> >>>>>> processes" were the centerpiece of his
> Process-Person-Context-Time
> >>> (PPCT)
> >>>>>> model. These are essentially the everyday
> activities in which
> >>> developing
> >>>>>> people engage, and they always and only occur
> in microsystems.
> >>> However,
> >>>>>> what goes on in microsystems is always
> influenced by (a) the person
> >>>>>> characteristics of the developing individuals
> of interest and those
> >> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> others with whom they interact, (b) the
> characteristics of the
> >> context,
> >>>>>> both proximal (as in the nature of the
> microsystem in which those
> >>>>>> activities are occurring) and distal (the
> macrosystem, which for him
> >>> was
> >>>>>> culture, whether considered at the level of
> society or within-society
> >>>>>> cultural groups), and (c) time, which includes
> both the need to study
> >>>>> over
> >>>>>> time (longitudinally) and in time (the
> prevailing social, economic,
> >> and
> >>>>>> political climate). A graphic representation
> that better reflects
> >>> his
> >>>>>> developed position than the concentric circles
> can be found in Tudge
> >>>>>> (2008), on page 69.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I actually think that he rather dropped the
> ball on culture,
> >>>>>> unfortunately. I really like his writings on
> this in his 1979 book
> >> and
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>> his 1989 (or 1992) chapter on ecological
> systems theory. Reading his
> >>>>> 1998
> >>>>>> (or 2006) handbook chapters you'll find
> virtually no mention of the
> >>>>> impact
> >>>>>> of culture (or macrosystem) despite drawing on
> Steinberg et al.'s
> >>>>> research
> >>>>>> on adolescents from different racial/ethnic groups.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't feel bad, though, if you have always just
> thought of
> >>>>> Bronfenbrenner's
> >>>>>> theory as one of concentric circles of
> context--you're no different
> >> in
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> regard from just about everyone who has
> published an undergrad
> >> textbook
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>> human development, not to mention a majority of
> scholars who have
> >> said
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> they've used UB's theory as foundational for
> their research (see
> >> Tudge
> >>> et
> >>>>>> al., 2009, 2016).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If anyone would like a copy of any of these
> papers, just send me a
> >>>>> private
> >>>>>> message to jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>
> <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu<mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). *The everyday lives
> of young children:
> >>>>>> Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse
> societies.* New York:
> >>>>>> Cambridge University Press.
> >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B.,
> & Karnik, R. B.
> >> (2009).
> >>>>>> Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> bioecological theory of human
> >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> Review, 1*(4), 198-210.
> >>>>>> - Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie
> Bronfenbrenner’s
> >> theory
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> human development: Its evolution from ecology
> to bioecology.
> >> *Journal
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> Family Theory and Review, 5*(6), 243–258.
> DOI:10.1111/jftr.12022
> >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner.
> In Heather Montgomery
> >>>>>> (Ed.), *Oxford bibliographies on line:
> Childhood studies*. New York:
> >>>>>> Oxford University Press.
> >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas,
> E. A., Cao, H., Liang,
> >>> Y.,
> >>>>>> Li, J., & O’Brien, L. T. (2016). Still misused
> after all these
> >> years?
> >>> A
> >>>>>> re-evaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> bioecological theory
> >> of
> >>>>> human
> >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> Review*, *8,* 427–445.
> >> doi:
> >>>>>> 10.1111/jftr.12165.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathan Tudge
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Professor
> >>>>>> Office: 155 Stone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Our work on gratitude:
> http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> L. (Eds.) Developing
> >>>>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> >>>>>>
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> >>>>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> >>>>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My web
> site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mailing address:
> >>>>>> 248 Stone Building
> >>>>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> >>>>>> PO Box 26170
> >>>>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> >>>>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> >>>>>> USA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> >>>>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:20 PM, mike cole
> <mcole@ucsd.edu<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Jon --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nice to see your voice!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I only have Urie's 2005 collection, *Making
> Human Beings Human, *to
> >>>>> hand. I
> >>>>>>> checked it out
> >>>>>>> to see if the terms activity and context
> appeared there. Only sort
> >> of!
> >>>>>>> Activity is in the index, but context is not
> (!). I attach two pages
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> the book for those interested (and able to
> read my amateur
> >>>>>>> photos). Here it seems that activity and
> context coincide at the
> >> micro
> >>>>>>> level, but perhaps only there?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Concerning embedded circles and context. It
> turns out that the
> >> person
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>>> induced Sheila and me to write a textbook on
> human development was
> >> U.
> >>>>>>> Bronfenbrenner. And this same U.B. discussed
> with us how to
> >> represent
> >>>>> his
> >>>>>>> perspective circa 1985, pretty early in the
> task of writing the
> >> first
> >>>>>>> edition. His use of matroshki (embedded dolls)
> as a metaphor and his
> >>>>>>> rhetoric at the time (and in 2005 as well) invites
> >>>>>>> a concentric circles representation. We
> discussed other ways of
> >> trying
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> represent the idea and he
> >>>>>>> said that our representation came as close as
> he could figure out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the 2005 book he refers to my work as
> combining a Vygotskian
> >> notion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> context with an anthropological one (p. 126),
> and uses the term
> >>>>> "ecological
> >>>>>>> context." I assume that most of my Russian
> colleagues would argue
> >> that
> >>>>> LSV
> >>>>>>> used the concept of "social situation of
> development," not context.
> >> I
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>>> no idea how he would respond to Yrjo's
> declaration that the activity
> >>> is
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> context, but it does not seem too far off from
> what is written on
> >> the
> >>>>> pages
> >>>>>>> attached.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps someone on xmca who is skilled at
> searching texts in
> >> cyrillic
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>>> search for his use of the term, context. I
> have always been curious
> >>>>> about
> >>>>>>> what such a search would turn up, but lack the
> skill
> >>>>>>> to carry out the query.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And perhaps you have written something about
> the mistake of
> >>> interpreting
> >>>>>>> U.B.'s notion of contexts using embedded
> circles we could learn
> >> from??
> >>>>>>> Certainly the passages on p. 46 remind me of
> the work of Hedegaard
> >> and
> >>>>>>> Fleer, who also draw upon U.B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> <PPCT (Tudge, 2008, p. 69).pptx>
> >>>
> >
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list