Well Roy, I just read your paper and here’s my main comment: At first let me state that I am not very much into what I sometimes call “Pope Exegesis” (refering to people trying to interpret within their scientific papers how the grand old masters of some scientific discourse meant this or that term and who is right in his interpretation – I personly hate these kind of presentations). But the way your paper criticizes in points 2-3 the concept of affordance as it was explicitly defined by Gibson makes me think that you want to stress something else than J. J. wanted. I think you are aiming at a concept that is more similar to what Gibson’s teacher Koffka and also Kurt Lewin meant by “Aufforderungscharakter” (translated to “demand character” in english) and that is more social and relational and more “negotiated” by immediate action than Gibson’s affordance concept, which itself is more refering to real physical properties of objects and less to actual goals, intentions and actions of actors. Gibson stresses this difference to Koffka’s conception in his 1979 book somewhere (dunno the page right now). Of course this is the central discussion point when it comes to “socializing affordances” (also in some Papers of Thomas A. Stoffregen, that I would recommend) and I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I would anyhow advice you to look up this part in Gibson’s original work and see if and how your conception differs and how it relates to Koffka’s. I mean, there is of course no problem in enhancement of an old concept for new challenges, but there may be profound reasons why Gibson differentiated himself from Koffka and the struggle with that should may be part of your discussion.
No problems with the rest of the paper and the whole argumentation though – anyhow I would be interested in your ideas for operationalization of “affordances” in empirical work (which is linked to the socialization-problem)