[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: What is a Pedagogy of the Oppressors?
Henry, I sent a quick invitation to Franson and we will see what unfolds. I
hope his university email address is current.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:52 PM, HENRY SHONERD <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, I am very much interested in finding what Manjali has done since his
> 1998 article. And yes, I I will look into his new book: Labyrinths of
> Language. From my background, I see this as connected to the LRH,
> Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. At the same time, I don’t want to lose
> touch with the issue raised in the final paragraph of the article you
> posted on Jan 2, wherein the issues of language acquisiton and usage-based
> grammar are raised. IMHO we are engaged in efforts to scaffold discourse
> adequate to the current chat: Pedagogy of the Oppressors. In that sense,
> language acquisition is a collaborative, creative and life-long process. In
> fact, I am terribly interested in the application of a semiotically-based
> linguistics to ANY thread. I see all of our threads as instantiations of
> dialog of that, potentially, serve as models of dialog in the larger world.
> And, I am always thinking of the work of Vera in her work on creativity and
> creative collaboration. Social dreaming that allows for cognitive
> pluralism. I go on too long here. But YES!
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Henry,
> > Franson Manjali's 5 page summary I thought was a wonderful summary of
> > we have been in exploring the relations among language, cognition, and
> > *mind*. I felt each paragraph could be expanded into a different thread
> > to be explored. With the guidance [and leadership] of others on this
> > [with more understanding of linguistics within anthropology and
> > I hope we may possibly read shared articles on this theme.
> > Or alternatively, I could *listen in* as others more informed on this
> > have an ongoing conversation on these topics.
> > In those 5 pages Franson moved historically through an expansive
> > historically effective horizon f understanding. How do I now *enter*
> > fascinating realm with my limited background. I was able to follow each
> > paragraph of the article [read as individual events] because of my
> > previous readings and conversations playing out on this listserve.
> > The reason I posted this article *as a primer* was the way Franson
> > *traced* the development of the evolving *dialogue* over a hundred year
> > epoch. I wanted to share his way of com-posing a historical interweaving
> > scholarship as his way of linking these linguistic theories as a
> > conversation. A historically developing story that led him to his summary
> > statement.
> > If others wanted to follow your suggestion to look deeply into his
> > statement I would be willing to contact Franson and explore if he has
> > pursued his own recommendation. Maybe he even has an article he would
> > with us.
> > He has a new book out "Labyrinths of Language* which is an anthology of
> > articles he has written.
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:35 PM, HENRY SHONERD <email@example.com>
> >> Larry and y’all,
> >> Way back three days ago Larry posted the following under the subject
> >> heading Primer of “A Primer of Culture and Semantics”:
> >> "To others who like myself do not have a background in linguistics, I
> >> a very short 5 page essay that summarizes concisely the exploration of
> >> semantics within culture and language and cognition studies in the last
> >> century.”
> >> Heres’s the link Larry provided:
> >> http://www.revue-texto.net/Inedits/Manjali_Culture.html <
> >> http://www.revue-texto.net/Inedits/Manjali_Culture.html>
> >> I am wondering if metaphor and embodied cognition, as per the work of
> >> Lakoff and others, might be considered of use in the current thread.
> >> Oppression has the hallmarks of of a generative metaphor and this
> >> oppression, and a way out of the opression itself might be fruitfully
> >> construed in the light of dialog/discourse analysis. Of especial
> >> to me is the final paragraph of the article:
> >> "It may be concluded from the above deliberations that after defining
> >> basic premises of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987),
> >> on the basis of earlier works on natural categorisation in psychology
> >> (Rosch), anthropological linguistics (Berlin and Kay), philosophy
> >> (Wittgenstein) and sociolinguistics (Labov), cognitive linguists turned
> >> issues which had been the main object of linguistic inquiry before the
> >> advent of generative theory. Langacker (1991) offered a number of
> >> of different linguistic phenomena utilising the earlier defined notions
> >> premises of cognitive linguistics. It has become necessary to verify
> >> theoretical constructs and predictions in terms of new empirical data.
> >> areas of research seem to be particularly promising in this context:
> >> cognitive analysis of discourse (Langacker 1999, Langacker 2001) and
> >> cognitive description of the language acquisition processes. Both of
> >> research domains offer massive corpora of unidealized, raw linguistic
> >> Attempts to describe discourse may serve to demonstrate how linguistic
> >> knowledge is utilised by real users in real context, while attempts
> >> at describing the process of language acquisition may demonstrate how
> >> knowledge is really shaped in contextualised grammatical ontogenesis
> >> the pressure of various mental and environmental factors. On the other
> >> hand, Langacker’s (2000) dynamic usage-based model may well provide a
> >> adequate framework for an insightful and comprehensive description of
> >> mechanisms of language acquisition. The future of cognitively motivated
> >> research on language acquisition seems to be promising."
> >> Just wondering.
> >> Henry
> >>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> Larry and others,
> >>> I am interested in "structures of feeling." Would you recommend
> >> in particular by Williams?
> >>> I think I am with you (if this is what you are saying) that a
> >> of sensing and feeling are important and frequently overlooked or swept
> >> under the carpet as if feeling were proof of weakness and not of
> >>> Also please recommend any reading by Levinas?
> >>> Thank you for your additions to the soup.
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Annalisa