Re: [xmca] LCA: AA Leontiev and Landolf/Thorne question

Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 07:08:25 PDT



You provide a good example of how language (used as a tool) mediates your goal of creating sound theory behind your teaching practice.  Because language is the main tool of your profession I would surmise that you rarely think in other terms.  However, the academically challenged student may construct knowledge in just as sophisticated a way as an academic expert but will lack the tools necessary (academic language) for communicating their thoughts.  The removal of shop classes from high schools has left many  of these academically challenged students without the avenue for communicating or expressing themselves.  It is not that the academic aspect is removed from the learning environment when students take mechanics or woodworking, rather a context is provided that helps students better understand the "grammar" of the academic world.



Phil Chappell <philchappell who-is-at>
Sent by:
07/05/2005 09:29 PM ZE7
Please respond to xmca

To: Mike Cole <>, "eXtended Media, Culture, Activity" <>
Subject: Re: [xmca] LCA: AA Leontiev and Landolf/Thorne question


My training as a language educator has led me to operationalise the
metaphor "acquire" as a derelict construct, automatically substituting
with "develop". And when SFL is woven in, as far as second language
learning is concerned, the activity might be glossed as 'learning what
ideational and interpersonal meanings are possible in given contexts
(social interactional activities), and how they are expressed'. Ruqaiya
suggested yesterday (Sthn Hemisphere time) that the theory of context
of situation in the early sociosemiotic perspective that I summarised
last weekend is a theory of "linguistic activity".

I may be out on a limb here, but let me quote AAL:

At the basis of man's intellectual activity, at the basis of his
thought, there lies the exploitation of material 'supports' and thought
procedures elaborated by society and appropriated by the given
individual. Of course, thought can be of varying degrees of complexity.
It is obvious that in theoretical thought the basic means mediating
intellectual activity is language. For this reason 'language and
thought' is a problem of deep psychological significance.

Not sure if there is a well-worked out answer, but how might we use the
construct of "intellectual activity" or "theoretical thought" as
candidates for activity?

Aside: Time is always our enemy - I think it might be worthwhile
looking into the work of the late Joachim Lompscher both in terms of
the "rise to the concrete" metaphor and having another take on learning
activity, although he didn't directly implicate language.


On 05/07/2005, at 5:21 AM, Mike Cole wrote:

> In seeking to figure out activity-language relations, a question I
> keep coming up against
> is what is meant by phrases such as
> "As far as psychology is concerned, speech is identical to any other
> activity" (p. 1 of AA Leontiev)
> or the phrase, "communicative activity.& _______________________________________________
xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:00:55 PDT