[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Ethnomethodology and Hedegaard's Article
Hi David-- Cannot get back to numbers of stages issue right now to give it
the attention it deservers, but I also
cannot see how SDD+neoform+crisis solves the issue of context!!
Stuck in the mud, I guess.
If you have never read McDermott's 93 article, check it out. Very thought
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:32 PM, David Kellogg <email@example.com>wrote:
> 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