On 30/08/2005, at 3:30 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> We can't all focus everywhere, but without an exotropic perspective
> how can one understand, for example, language acquisition,
> enculturation, and developmental change, generally speaking?
I think that was what I was trying to say! We began this LCA discussion
with an acknowledgement that SFL people have opportunities to extend
their theoretical perspectives on learning and development, and
conversely, CHAT folks to extend their views on language. There seems
to be some agreement on complementarity. There are of course dozens of
reasons why people are not joining in - that's been discussed before -
and I was surmising that perhaps for the people looking in here,
throwing (or I liked your cricket metaphor of batting) around Bernstein
might be pushing the classification boundaries too far for some to have
the time, interest, etc. to consider.
If it is indeed only we two, then I guess we can put a closure to the
LCA discussion. It does seem a shame to leave Bernstein out, as he
figured prominently in Halliday's lifelong work, and is for many an
integral part of the SFL theory. In my classroom based research, I am
finding Bernstein's ideas of framing, classification, and the
pedagogical device to be of enormous help. Perhaps I'm guilty of
endotropy myself! And for those who remember the Carolyn Panofsky paper
that is still on the archive site, think how a Bernsteinian lens might
have helped thrash out the social class issues of those students!
If this is the premature end, may I thank all the "guest moderators"
for their time and energy and also the dozen or so people who made the
discussions so rich. I learned a great deal as usual from the diverse
group who pop in here, and look forward to more.
But that was a hypothetical conditional - it aint over till pronounced
Zero-tolerance virus detector enabled for incoming and outgoing mail
ClamXav for Mac OSX
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 01:00:10 PDT