Would it be possible to get the references for this paper? It sounds like it
would be valuable reading.
On 10/21/06 11:11 AM, "bb" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> Tony Whitson wrote:
>> for analyzing some of the things in that paper. Not a choice between
>> differing theories [chat vs sitcog] so much as a selection of one toolbox
>> rather than the
>> other (as I understood it).
>> What do you thiink?
> The comment made in that paper was dialogical, in response to one of the
> reviewers who had questioned why CHAT and not CoP was the framework of that
> study! Because of the reviewers question, I felt it was necessary to do a
> side-by-side comparison of CHAT and CoP -- and it actually affected the whole
> paper. The way you rephrased it in this new context makes perfect sense, in
> retrospect. We have choices in the semantic resources we can bring to bear
> when working with theory, and those of CHAT are richer and more cohesive than
> CoP, due in part to the former's substantial history of development by many.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST