Re: English on the internet

Alfred Lang (lang who-is-at psy.unibe.ch)
Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:46:34 +0200

In my view, participating in a community where the basic vehicle of
interacting is not one's primary "nature" -- English language as a second
language in my case -- is a privilege much more than a burden. Not so much
for reasons of widened horizon, functionality of a larger community, world
wide communality or whatever reasons of that kind have been mentioned. My
point is rather that by expressing anything in just one single medium, or
even by exchanging influence on just one channel, one runs a higher risk of
becoming enslaved by particular connexions of referents and signs, some of
which we like to call thruths or laws etc. Being instigated by that kind of
participation to express any idea or feeling or argument twice, i.e. in two
different forms, helps in getting those clearer, more sensible. Sometimes
it also contributes to becoming (perhaps over)sceptical in view of the
modern sciences being so much victim of nominalims, of taking words and
their operationalisations in terms of supposed categories of facts for
reality. It supports a sort of triangulation: something in the focus of two
(or more) perspectives is obviously more trustworthy than something just
seen and expressed, though perhaps a bit less easy to deal with. Being
forced to get hold of something -- whether apparently factual or more
virtual -- in several sights gives that something more chances. It furthers
abductive procedure rather than fixations. Is not psychology at large quite
victim of a single-minded conformity?

So much for the individual gain, in that my perspective in a way enhances
that expressed by Eva Ekblad. But in addition, I think that a related kind
of triangulation takes place on XMCA anyhow, within the one English
language medium -- just because so many and different voices are not only
uttered but also sensibly received and taken up. This requires an agreed
upon form. I comply with Jay that overscrupulous form deviations should not
be taken as a basis for judging those who commit them. But I am not so sure
as Ana when she applauds the changeability of English and so emphasizes the
medium's flexibility. It was Fritz Heider who in 1921 aready has pointed
out that a medium is useless in both cases: when it is too resistive
because of its own character and when it is too adaptive to what it is to
confer because of no proper character. The English language today, in my
opinion, is perhaps quite a bit on the flexible side; too many people are
then tempted to recognize "the" reality in the words, while, when language
resists, you realize, a text is a version of something beyond, a form of
some set of conditions and a phase of some ensuing effects. Indeed, as Mike
Cole hinted at in another context: "when words are remembered,
'automatically'" then "culture becomes transparent", i.e. not properly
valued.

Alfred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Lang Internet: lang who-is-at psy.unibe.ch
Psychology, Univ. of Bern, Unitobler, Muesmattstr. 45, CH-3000 Bern 9
Office: Tel (+41 +31) 631 40 11 Fax 631 82 12
Home (preferably): Hostalen 106, CH-3037 Herrenschwanden
Switzerland Tel+Fax (+41 +31) 302 53 42
-----------------------------------------------------------------------