OK - out of lurk mode to express interest in language and CHAT!
Fern.
_____
From: Steven Thorne [mailto:sthorne@psu.edu]
Sent: 07 April 2005 17:49
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Way off thread - SLA
hi Mike and all -- yes, if there's interest enough, it would be great to
have a discussion that focused on language and chat (notice the slight
broadening of the topic to be more inclusive and potentially interesting to
a greater number of folks -- a tighter concentration on SLA and/or
bilingualism is also fine). though there's been very interesting classical
work on language within chat proper (bakhtin, volosinov, vygotsky, shpet,
and more obliquely ilyenkov), as well as recent work (gordon wells, jay
lemke, r. engestrom, chik collins, rommetveit, + some of the applied
linguistics Phil mentioned) [note: these lists are off the cuff not meant to
exclusive!], there are many highly related, and sometimes even explicitly
chat linked, researchers doing very interesting work that is broadly
commensurate with chat (michael tomasello comes foremost to mind here).
but yes, other than this brief and hopefully encouraging missive, we'll save
this thread for another time.
steve
Steven, Phil and other SLA advocates. Perhaps we can make this line of work
one thread in the
online CHAT class I am scheuling for December-March next year. As you can
see, between the
play discussion upcoming (see papers on xmca papers for discussion) and
discussion of an
article from MCA (see xmca discussions) I expect we will be struggling
simply to pay attention
to that and always-emerging other topics for the next several weeks.
mike
On Apr 7, 2005 12:27 AM, Steven Thorne <sthorne@psu.edu> wrote:
hi Phil and all -- there is indeed a strong and growing strand of applied
and cognitive linguistics/SLA work rooted in vygotskian and chat frameworks.
a colleague (jim lantolf) and i are finishing up a book length manuscript
for OUP on this very theme. as you note, our group here in the US has been
active, but as you correctly mention, most of our stuff has been
praxiological, but not explicitly pedagogical (though of course we strive to
"ascend to the concrete"!). in our forthcoming volume, we're trying to
address this through some chapters that look specifically at concept
development and the role of mediation, artifacts, and forms of participation
that might foster the conditions of possibility (to rob a line from
foucault) for learning, and potentially, development (i won't parse these
terms here other than to revisit vygotsky's notion that learning precedes
development, and development, especially in late-modern post-vygotskian
theorizing, involves resolutions to contradictions > reorganization of
mental processes > the dialectical becoming of a new kind of person
(possibly in domain specific environments/performances).
lastly, i was a member of the old xlchc some years ago and only in the past
week or so resubscribed -- why it took me so long is a mystery! but i'm very
happy to be back.
steve
Sorry, All to open a counter-thread, but I have been doing some back reading
of reviews etc, and came across this intriguing section of a review of a
book devoted to second language (SL) learning and linguistic form and
meaning (see below). I was intrigued by this section of the review
(background: the field of SL "acquisition" is still dominated by
psycholinguistic theories stemming from Chomskyian linguistic theory and
conduit metaphors of communication, see Reddy's work of three decades ago).
Like some others (both active and passive list members, based on the member
list Mike mentioned earlier), I have been living the contradiction between
the dominant platform in SL research and the one(s) that are more
semiotically based and focused on human interaction and development. But
should we always be in a position where we do not "fully agree" with the
prevailing hegemonic views on aspects of human development when we have
such exciting "counter views" based on the interests of many on this list?
Views which have spurned their own debates between, for example, the strong
socio-semiotic and interventionist, though somewhat inaccessible theories of
the Australian SFL group based on Halliday, Martin, etc; the exciting group
within the US that bases its work on sociocultural theory, albeit criticised
for downplaying pedagogy (Lantolf, Wells, Thorne, Kramsch, etc); and the
group of educational sociologists in the UK that have expanded and made more
accessible the works of, for example, Bernstein. Apologies for the
geographical divides here, but I am sure it is a little less in your face
than religious analogies.
I'm young in this academic game, and I'd love some pointers on ways to
foster cross-talk rather than cross!-talk.
Phil Chappell
--Steven L. Thorne Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Linguistics and Applied Language Studies and Communication Arts and Sciences Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research The Pennsylvania State University
Interact > 814.863.7036 | <mailto:sthorne@psu.edu> sthorne@psu.edu | <http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/> http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
--
Steven L. Thorne Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Linguistics and Applied Language Studies and Communication Arts and Sciences Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research The Pennsylvania State University
Interact > 814.863.7036 | sthorne@psu.edu | http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PDT