Ana-
I assume everyone is invited and I saw that Phil has volunteered to pull
some readings together. Whether he and (perhaps some co-organizers) want to
write paragraph
summaries is up to him/them. Of course if he sets such a precedent, those to
follow would, we might assume, follow through?
mike
On Apr 10, 2005 7:27 AM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <ana@zmajcenter.org> wrote:
>
> It was just a suggestion. I agree fully, it is hard to sustain an on line
> conversation on one -- even broad - topic. But here is another suggestion,
> before we plan (or Phil plans! :-) who to invite to participate: How about
> "charting the universe of (LA and SLA)" -- just getting all the references
> together - but with one paragraph annotation by the person who proposes a
> reference? I am sure that even just gathering annotated references will be
> already a big job.
> Again, this is just a suggestion.
> Ana
>
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Ana and Kris--
>
> I fully agree about the relevance of the additional scholars you are
> suggesting, but it if you consider the range of ideas that fall under this
> expanded umbrella, it seems like we will need more than a summer to
> do justice to the corresponding range of ideas and volume of reading.
> Perhaps we need to dedicate the summer and fall to considering the topic
> of language, culture, and activity with different people playing
> discussion
> coordinator roles?
>
> In any event, my suggestion is that since Phil initiated this line of
> discussion
> (which we have had before, but not with sufficient concentration for it to
> "stick") we should ask him to be the first coordinator and then sequence
> things in a manner that allows consolidation over time. Then might one or
> both of you follow on?
>
> Of course, if there is concensus on tackling the range from Halliday to
> Bates
> through Ochs and the Goodwins, that can be attempted. My sense, however,
> is that a more measured sequence would work better.
>
> Then, after the first of the year, we will try a coordinated discussion of
> basic
> princiiples of chat as an online as well as local course. Mary Bryson is
> planning
> such a course where she is, as am I, so we have at least two "local"
> courses
> that can help to anchor and sustain a broader course.Our prior experience
> indicates
> that without such distributed cooperation, a large distributed course is
> likely to
> founder.
> mike
>
> On Apr 9, 2005 11:24 PM, Kris Gutierrez <gutierrez@gseis.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >
> > After AERA, i was going to ask Ellie (Ochs), and Chuck and Candy
> > Goodwin to recommend one of their articles and i'll post some for
> > consideration. i already asked the Goodwin's today. We're all
> > working together on a Sloan Center for the Everyday lives of middle
> > class working families but I'm not sure we have papers relevant to the
> > topic that are ready. maybe later. kris
> > Kris D. Gutierrez
> > Professor
> > Social Research Methodology
> > Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
> > Moore Hall 1026
> > UCLA
> > Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521
> > 310-825-7467
> > On Apr 9, 2005, at 10:46 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
> >
> > > We should also include people in the "pragmatic linguistics",
> > > especially people who study development. Elinor Ochs and Bambi
> > > Schieffelin, Elizabeth Bates are some names that come to mind.
> > >
> > > Ana
> > >
> > > Steven Thorne wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Andy is absolutely right (which is why i put in the caveat about my
> > >> lists being off the cuff and partial!) -- ron scollon with his
> > >> innovative work on mediated discourse analysis does a great job of
> > >> bringing together vygotskian insights with close analysis of
> > >> language/discourse (as does debbie schiffrin's stuff on
> > >> intersubjectivity as achievement, + many others).
> > >>
> > >> there's also a recently formed group that's putting into
> > >> juxtaposition conversation analysis and chat -- it's a troubled
> > >> marriage on a number of fronts, but it is the fissures and frictions
> > >> that seem to be producing grist for the mill of interesting/combative
> > >> thinking. a number of us will be presenting together at AILA (14th
> > >> world congress of applied linguistics) this summer.
> > >>
> > >> steve
> > >>
> > >>> Hey lets not forget the interactional sociolinguistics.
> > >>>
> > >>> andy
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: Steven Thorne <sthorne@psu.edu>
> > >>> Date: Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:49 pm
> > >>> 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>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>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/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:00:06 PDT