[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: A supplement to David's reflection on Translatability
can't escape it
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> It's a little disappointing that they oppressed their own conversation at
> the following point, no?
> MS [Michael Silverstein]: I say to my students all the time: 'now that
> I've revealed to you the entire massive machinery of socio-linguistic
> oppression, of stratification around the standard and so on, that will not
> stop me from correcting your papers because my institution is at the
> highest pinnacle of what you might call the oppressive regime'.
> JB [Jan Blommaert]: Absolutely. And at the same time - maybe this could be
> a useful conclusion of this conversation - at the same time it proves also
> that there is no absence of norms, there is no shortage of norms even in a
> sociocultural organization of language. Normativity is everywhere.
> On Jan 1, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Larry Purss <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I decided to start a new thread because I did not want to shift the
> focus that David’s thread opened up on myth busting.
> > However, I do want to share a paper on the topic of translatability and
> the uses of standardization that does overlap somewhat with the other
> > The format is a conversation between Michael Silverstein, Jef Van de Aa,
> and Jan Blommaert.
> > Entering this conversation exploring the notion of translatability as a
> culturally bound philosophical construct may have some relevance for the
> other thread ongoing.
> > Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> > <NOVEMBER 4 2014 390 BLOMMAERT and Silverstein_in_conversation.pdf>
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch