[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Speakers of AAE

I am in over my head when exploring linquistic themes. However, the power of “grammatical structures” within events and even multiple “ontologies” [as recently discussed] leaves me wanting to understand more linquistic anthropology.

I want to add Peter Jones voice to our explorations though a quote he offered while critiquing “Critical Discourse Analysi”  He wrote” 
Our position, in contrast with the practice of CDA, is that the identification of the communicational processes and strategies relevant to particular engagements, the understanding and interpretation of what the relevant or significant communicational forms, meanings and patterns are in a particular situation or event is something that emerges in the course of detailed empirical investigation of the relevant event in all its complexity. There is simply no method or procedure of discourse analysis to be applied short of this process of deciding what words mean in the course of interpretatively reconstructing an entire action or event to which the words contribute. Within the event itself there is no level or dimension of “discourse” as a self-contained, stable and iterable system of forms and meanings.”

As I read this quote and link it to the power of grammatical syntax as it “shapes” meaning I’m asking how Peter Jones and David Kellogg overlap? In the above paragraph how is “peter” agentively  using the syntactical grammar for “personal” ends?  and how dominatingly  is the grammatical syntax “shaping” what the person “peter” is “becoming”

Is the grammatical syntax an “aspect” or “element” of the “shaping” and “forming” context WITHIN a multimodal relational  interplay OR Is “Peter” one “aspect” or “element” WITHIN THE EVENT OR ACTION.

In other words is “Peter” more centrally located [as “agentic”] IN DECIDING, and also more deliberate, IN DESIGNING [self-consciously deciding] the action and events AS “activity?

”Who IS doing  the deciding, and how agentively?

Back to “the third space” as a “case” Is the DESIGN of the third space an agentive shaping?  I read Kris as saying there is a hybrid agency BOTH autobiographical and intersubjective..

How central in shapting this “third space” is grammatical metaphor.  Is grammatical metaphor dominant, or is Kris as deciding and designing PRE-structures more agentively dominant or is it the radical reciprocal inter-subjective hybridity OF and IN “the third space” what is dominant?

These are questions generated in my “musings” linking and transverse-ing our explorations as performances.


Sent from Windows Mail

From: Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎21‎, ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎32‎ ‎AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

How about all you AAE locutioners come on over here and leave the metaphor discussants in the metaphor thread?