These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Hi David-- Cannot get back to numbers of stages issue right now to give it the attention it deservers, but I also cannot see how SDD+neoform+crisis solves the issue of context!! Stuck in the mud, I guess. If you have never read McDermott's 93 article, check it out. Very thought provoking. mike On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:32 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote: > > Mike: > > Context is a ragbag in linguistics too. Halliday tries VERY HARD to save it > by using Malinowski (context of culture and context of situation). Widdowson > does a much better job with "co-text" and "pre-text", but most of what we > want to study is still "pre-text". > > For DEVELOPMENTAL purposes, the answer to this, and also to the ZPD/ZPL > distinction, is right there in the book that LSV never wrote, "Child > Development", in Volume Five. Not culture vs. situation or in-text vs. > out-text, but social situation of development, the crisis, the new formso f > mental life. > > Oh, my note. Well, I meant that PSEUDOCONCEPTS are concepts for others, > while true concepts have to be concepts for myself. You are right to point > out that they are not functionally equivalent except in rather superficial > interactions: the child who thinks a "baby whale" is a baby and not a whale > will eventually be undeceived. > > Halliday's example, "Some dinosaurs learned to fly and others learned to > swim", which has a conceptual Darwinian interpretation and a concrete, > complexive anthropomorphic one, will eventually be resolved in favor of the > former, so they are not PERMANENTLY functionally equivalent. > > But it takes a while! After all Linnaeus and even Lysenko basically have a > non-conceptual, phenotypical interpretation of how dinosaurs learned to fly > and swim. So functional equivalence is real and durable. > > When LSV insists on functional equivalence (p. 144), I think he's talking > about functional equivalence within Sakharov's experimental conditions. > > Do you think LSV's reference to "three basic stages" on p. 134 EXCLUDES > concepts? Or that there are THREE "phases" to the third stage, > "abstraction", "potential concept", and "true concept"? > > David Kellogg > Seoul National University of Education > > > > > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca