-------------- Original message ----------------------
Tony Whitson wrote:
> for analyzing some of the things in that paper. Not a choice between
> differing theories [chat vs sitcog] so much as a selection of one toolbox rather than the
> other (as I understood it).
>
> What do you thiink?
>
The comment made in that paper was dialogical, in response to one of the reviewers who had questioned why CHAT and not CoP was the framework of that study! Because of the reviewers question, I felt it was necessary to do a side-by-side comparison of CHAT and CoP -- and it actually affected the whole paper. The way you rephrased it in this new context makes perfect sense, in retrospect. We have choices in the semantic resources we can bring to bear when working with theory, and those of CHAT are richer and more cohesive than CoP, due in part to the former's substantial history of development by many.
attached mail follows:
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST