The paper itself does not do a side by side comparison Janet, and I htink this is what you were asking for. The comparison was done mostly as background work to revising for publication, and there are a couple places in which the comparison emerges. I'll just send you the paper directly, in case you're still interested.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Janet Frost <email@example.com>
> Would it be possible to get the references for this paper? It sounds like it
> would be valuable reading.
> On 10/21/06 11:11 AM, "bb" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > -------------- 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST