These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
On 15 March 2013 21:39, kellogg <kellogg59@hanmail.net> wrote: > Huw: > > > > Of course, "Welsh" can be perfectly prototypical (I bet you can sing!) and > there is probably a lot more scientific literature on the origins of > Britishness. So I assume you are really talking about syntagmatic, > everyday, weakly framed and weakly classified understandings versus > paradigmatic, strongly classified and framed ones, the distinction at the > root of Basil Bernstein's idea of "pedagogical device" and at the bottom of > his very controversial distinction between a restricted code and an > elaborated one. > Semantic framing maybe a useful way to go, but I am not sure that would pick up on the distinction accurately. I do not see that the pedagogic aspects are central to my question, unless it so happens that the channel through which the conceptual appreciations are acquired retain communicative style. The distinction I am interested in, from a psychological perspective, is relating to memories "as is" or to relate to one's recollections actively (thinking). Hence there is room for confusion around learning conceptual material -- one can repeat the formulation that a square's sides are of equal length in a rather unthinking way. For example, I think we can discern at times when people speak in a reflective, thoughtful and exploratory way as opposed to a dogmatic or "everyday" (normative) manner. Jay's book with the transcripts may be useful, thanks. I don't have too much time to wade through theoretical frameworks right now. Transcripts with analysis revealing this distinction is what I'm after. Thanks for your prompts, and interest, David. Huw > > Bernstein put forward this distinction to explain why working class kids > were not doing well in schools in post-war Britain, and he was criticized a > lot (and often unfairly, e.g. by William Labov) for blaming the victim and > creating a deficit model of working class culture. A lot of the same > criticisms that are made of Vygotsky's ideas about primitivism. > > > > But Bernstein's model has been thoroughly operationalized for classroom > data by the systemic functional linguists (Halliday, Hasan, Painter, > Cloran, and others). It seems to me tht his distinction is one of the facts > that people dislike but which is empirically true (although I think it > doesn't really explain what Bernstein set out to explain because by the > time kids are in middle school they talk like each other and not like their > parents). > > > > There are a lot of good studies in that direction: > > > > Bernstein, B. (1996, 2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. > Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield > > Christie F. and J.R. Martin (eds) (2007) Languages, Knowledge and > Pedagogy. London: Continuum. > > Christie, F. (ed) (1999). Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. > London: Continuum. > > > > And don't forget: > > > > Lemke, J. (1990) Talking Science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex > > Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (1993) Writing Science. Pittsburgh: > University of Pittsburgh Press. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies > > > > > --------- 원본 메일 --------- > > *보낸사람*: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> > *받는사람* : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > *날짜*: 2013년 3월 15일 금요일, 22시 17분 33초 +0900 > *제목*: [xmca] voice in relation to normative and relational knowledge > Can anyone point me to studies that have explored the differences between > recollections/descriptions of circumstances on the basis of normative (i.e. > prototypical) and relational (i.e. scientific conceptual) knowledge, > please? > > For instance, with respect to Identity, I can normatively describe myself > as British. But if I feel the need for more precision, then I can relate > to my Welsh phylogeny etc. > > Examples pertinent to the classroom would be especially good. > > Thanks, > Huw > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<http://mail2.daum.net/hanmail/mail/MailComposeFrame.daum?TO=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > > > <kellogg59@hanmail.net> > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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