Re: Generalizing in Interaction

From: Peg Griffin (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 07:30:44 PDT

I wonder if the distinction/relation between epilinguistic and metalinguistic is relevant. Gombert's 1992 Metalinguistic Development (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf) is a source about epilinguistic; I chased it down because of Goswami's use of it.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mike Cole
  To: Xmca
  Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:00 AM
  Subject: Generalizing in Interaction

  In reflecting on the earlier discussion of Jurow's article on generalizing in interaction I come
  away with a feeling of incompleteness. Maybe its ingendered by the fact that some people
  appreciated the careful description of classroom practices and Jurow's approach to understanding
  generalizing as a consequence of changes of modes of participation and communication, in particular
  the patterns labelled "linking" and "conjecturing." Others seemed to be looking for an analysis of generalization
  as "rising to the concrete" a la Davydov and apparently did not take much away from the Jurow approach.

  Looking back at the article, the critical disjuncture (if I am correct) is signaled on p. 281 where Jurow contrasts
  her approach to development as formation of "decontextualized knowledge" (her quotation marks) and generalization
  as "the product of accurated mental representations.... and "an individual cognitive activity performed to recognize
  and acquire objective categories." (My quotes)

  She substitutes instead a "situated or practice perspective, (from which) abstracting is conceptualized not as "moving
  away from" situations, but as a product of local practices." (her quotes and mine)

  I gather that Michael Roth and others which to substitute "rising to the concrete" for "product of local practices."

  I wonder if his is equivalent to a shift from the use of Vygotsky to Davyodov. For example, Vygotsky (Collected works,

  Vol 3, p. 138) writes

  The law: the form of generalization corresponds to the form of communication. "Communication and genralization
  are internally connected. ....

  Generalization. What is generalization? Generalization is the exclusion from visual structures and the incusion in thought structures,
  semantic structures. ....

  Now if there were someone on XMCA interested in discourse theories of mathematical thinking, who knows, we might get some
  help with disentangling these issues. Are the approaches contradictory? Complentary? Incoherent? Out of date? On the cusp
  of the future?

  I am unsure. By convention, I believe we are on the cusp of summer where I live. I am going for a walk, summer style, to prepare
  for those examinations and grant deadlines!

  Unless there is more to be written, lets examine language and activity.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:05 PDT