[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest
On 18 July 2014 22:51, David Kellogg <email@example.com> wrote:
> All functions have to be both, but they
> don't have to be the same proportions of both, and so development is,
> contrary to what Huw suggests, perfectly possible. Children do not leap
> metaphysically, but dialectically--by going from using language mostly to
> get attention (and largely without clause grammar) to using language to
> give information and eventually using it to check understanding.
What makes this a leap, David? It seems to be a leap from the point of
view of the observer, not a leap in capability. A leap (i.e. a break in
the process of transformation) in capability would be anathema to genetic
> Play activity is, as Vygotsky has shown us,
> genetically related to speech and not to labour.
These might be helpful in genetically relating play activity to labour (in
a similar vein to relating complexes to concepts):