The Langner papers constitute the review of the works, A. A. Leont'ev
articulating a CHAT view of language. Cheers, Michael
Langner, M. (1984a). Rezeption der Tätigkeitstheorie und der
Sprachtätigkeitstheorie in der Bundesrepublik, Teil I [Reception of
activity theory and speech act theory in the Federal Republic of
Germany, part I]. Deutsche Sprache, 3, 239–275.
Langner, M. (1984b). Rezeption der Tätigkeitstheorie und der
Sprachtätigkeitstheorie in der Bundesrepublik, Teil II [Reception of
activity theory and speech act theory in the Federal Republic of
Germany, part II]. Deutsche Sprache, 4, 326–358.
Langner, M. (1984c). Tätigkeitstheory–Sprechtätigkeitstheorie [Activity
theory–Speech act theory]. Deutsche Sprache, 2, 110–140.
Leont’ev, A. A. (1971): Sprache, Sprechen, Sprechtätigkeit [Language,
speech, speech act] (C. Heeschen, Trans.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Leont’ev, A. A. (1974). Psycholinguistik und Sprachunterricht
[Psycholinguistics and language education] (G. Schulz & G. Seyfahrt,
Trans.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
On 2-Jun-05, at 7:24 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Can you send some referrences? Both of the reviews and of the
> original works.
> Ana
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:Hi Ana,
>> there has been a lot of work in linguistics from CHAT
>> perspective--reviewed in some 1984 papers, but which are in German,
>> unfortunately for many here on the list.
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On 2-Jun-05, at 6:17 AM, Phil Chappell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2005, at 5:35 AM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I am interested in is developing a CHAT theory of language --
>>>> so all these different ways to look at it as an activity are very
>>>> helpful.
>>>> Ana
>>>
>>> Dear Ana, Mike, and All,
>>>
>>> I'm a little hesitant to go too far here, as my own previous
>>> attempts here to sow the seeds of a group object/motive of
>>> discussing AT and a theory of language haven't really resulted in
>>> much - I often wonder whether any mention of systemics and Michael
>>> Halliday results in an impulsive "hit hit the delete" response ;-)
>>> And whither Bernstein...
>>>
>>> But Ana's interest is an interest that many here have, I feel, and
>>> it has often been said that the xmca community lacks a fully
>>> articulated theory of language, just as the SFL community is often
>>> derided for lacking a fully articulate theory of human learning. I'm
>>> struggling right now with a study from the SFL "Sydney school" in an
>>> attempt to make explicit a pedagogical approach that foregrounds the
>>> linguistic features that afford students access to future human
>>> activity that they may otherwise be denied. But that is a red
>>> herring here.
>>>
>>> Should anyone here wish to pursue the discussion of a theory of
>>> language "for chat", I'd like to offer up the suggestion that we
>>> read Gordon Well's paper: The complementary contributions of
>>> Halliday and Vygotsky to a 'language-based theory of learning', and
>>> I also think that the various ecological views of language may be
>>> worthwhile to pursue.
>>>
>>> So, any takers to assemble a couple of papers? I have an electronic
>>> version of Gordon's paper that we will need to get approval to use
>>> first.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it there and hope there may be a couple here interested
>>> in making a motive.......
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:07 PDT