Campaign by all means, David. Last time I looked the articles were running
neck and neck
(to use a situated metaphor, if such a term is not an oxymoron)
On 11/8/06, Kellogg <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure campaigning is allowed in the XMCA poll, but I just got my
> copy of Mind, Culture and Activity and I notice that the Park and Moro
> article directly addresses the issue of the integratedness (what other
> people on this list call the "situatedness") of verbal interaction.
> But Park and Moro raise an issue that we've so far left out, which I think
> is key, namely INTENTIONALITY. Without intentionality, it is perfectly
> possible for linguists to imagine that the structure of language is the
> result of some kind of elemental self-organizing principle, akin to what we
> see in biochemistry or even animal behavior. .
> What I really like about the article is the way Park and Moro manage to
> integrate intentionality and situation. By making it clear that
> intentionality is not simply a matter of the will but rather a matter of
> integrating the will and environmental affordances, they are able to
> overcome an apparent contradiction: LSV's firm conviction that learning
> comes about through interacting with the social environment created by
> teaching rather than directly, and LSV's equally firm conviction that the
> child does not "internalize" the culture of the social environment of
> learning but rather creates a new one.
> This is a contradiction that really bothers me when I read LSV's textbook
> on "Educational Psychology", and it's for this reason I've always secretly
> witten it off as a bit of LSV's juvenilia. Anyway, maybe you won't have to
> pay through the nose to read Park and Moro (like I did) and we can continue
> our discussion of how language is integrated into non-language next month. I
> promise: I'm not recommending it because it's regional produce!
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:14:21 PST