I am intrigued, though, by the apparent suspicion of linguistic analysis
expressed by both Rolfe and Katherine, who, if I am reading them correctly,
see it as a controlling technology for positioning the linguist as more
expert than others...
Analogies have also been made with a doctor's medical language.
Presumably we are prepared to accept (most of the time) a doctor's
technical language because she or he is able to offer us understanding
about our bodies through this technical which is not able to be construed
through our everyday experience of life. Although we may find a doctor's
technicality offensive, and doctors get it wrong from time to time and the
'truths' of medicine change over time etc, we are still prepared to offer
doctors a priviledged place in society because their technical discourse
allows us to intervene in the course of events in ways that would not be
possible.
If we accept that language is a major instrument of social control and
consciousness, might not it be possible that the expert discourse of the
linguist, offensively technical, could be an important tool in
undeerstanding and intervenining the linguistic aspecs of social
inequalities in society.Just becasue, as an academic community, we use
language extensively, doesn't mean that an other's expertise may not be
useful. Just as a top athlete, who uses her body often, may have need of a
doctor. Indeed top athletes seem to surround themselves with 'other'
experts, physiotherapists, trainers, masseurs etc.