ABSTRACT

Today, L.S. Vygotsky’s concept of a ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) is often used to just mean best practices in early years teaching, like scaffolding. But in his original theory, the zones linked age periods distinguished by age-specific neoformations – one of which was the formation of concepts at adolescence. So Vygotsky rejected Stern’s idea that early years already had the wherewithal of adult concepts and affirmed the age-specific quality of child thinking instead. He demonstrated this through two ingenious ‘name games’. In this paper, with the help of two Korean children, we’ll replicate the name games and use one game to study the difference between Vygotsky’s ‘Crisis at Three’ and the ‘Crisis at Seven’. We describe the differences from the systemic-functional perspective of Ruqaiya Hasan and Michael Halliday. In this way, we hope to restore a diagnostic function to Vygotsky’s ZPD.

摘要

今天，LS Vygotsky 的“最近发展区”(ZPD) 概念通常仅用于表示早期教学中的最佳实践，例如脚手架。但在他最初的理论中，这些区域连接了以特定年龄新形成为特征的年龄阶段——其中之一是青春期概念的形成。因此，维果茨基拒绝了斯特恩的观点，即早年已经具备成人概念的能力，而是肯定了儿童思维的特定年龄特征。他通过两个巧妙的“名字游戏”证明了这一点。在本文中，在两个韩国孩子的帮助下，我们将复制名字游戏，并使用一个游戏来研究维果茨基的“三点危机”和“七点危机”之间的区别。我们从 Ruqaiya Hasan 和 Michael Halliday 的系统功能角度描述了差异。这样，