[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest

[Huw Lloyd]

On 18 July 2014 22:51, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.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
principles.


> 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):

http://marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/elkonin/works/1971/stages.htm

Best,
Huw