Re: [xmca] Ethnomethodology and Hedegaard's Article

[David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>]

Mike: 

Context is a ragbag in linguistics too. Halliday tries VERY HARD to save it by using Malinowski (context of culture and context of situation). Widdowson does a much better job with "co-text" and "pre-text", but most of what we want to study is still "pre-text". 

For DEVELOPMENTAL purposes, the answer to this, and also to the ZPD/ZPL distinction, is right there in the book that LSV never wrote, "Child Development", in Volume Five. Not culture vs. situation or in-text vs. out-text, but social situation of development, the crisis, the new formso f mental life.  

Oh, my note. Well, I meant that PSEUDOCONCEPTS are concepts for others, while true concepts have to be concepts for myself. You are right to point out that they are not functionally equivalent except in rather superficial interactions: the child who thinks a "baby whale" is a baby and not a whale will eventually be undeceived.

Halliday's example, "Some dinosaurs learned to fly and others learned to swim", which has a conceptual Darwinian interpretation and a concrete, complexive anthropomorphic one, will eventually be resolved in favor of the former, so they are not PERMANENTLY functionally equivalent. 

But it takes a while! After all Linnaeus and even Lysenko basically have a non-conceptual, phenotypical interpretation of how dinosaurs learned to fly and swim. So functional equivalence is real and durable.

When LSV insists on functional equivalence (p. 144), I think he's talking about functional equivalence within Sakharov's experimental conditions.

Do you think LSV's reference to "three basic stages" on p. 134 EXCLUDES concepts? Or that there are THREE "phases" to the third stage, "abstraction", "potential concept", and "true concept"? 

David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education



      
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca