Dear All,
I've exchanged emails with Mike and will put some thought into how/what
we might do. If anyone's interested in helping out, please yell!
Phil
On 09/04/2005, at 5:41 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> May you could organize us a mini-summer course/discussion, Phil.
> Perhaps we can get enough
> coordinated effort to get over threshold.
> mike
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2005 7:33 PM, Phil Chappell <philchappell@mac.com> wrote:
> Mike, Steven, Andrew, Dot, Kevin, Fern, et. al.,
>
> So later in the year it is. Perhaps in the meantime people might
> suggest some articles, book chapters that we could start collecting
> (the forthcoming Thorne and Lantolf must definitely be there ;-) I'd
> like to see if we couldn't get a couple of people from the
> Halliday/genre pedagogy group of applied linguists involved, too.
> There is some very interesting work on scaffolding interventions going
> on there at the moment.
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
> On Thursday, April 07, 2005, at 09:29PM, Mike Cole
> <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><<Original Attached>>
>
>
> 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 | 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