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

[Xmca-l] Re: A supplement to David's reflection on Translatability



Its only disappointing if you thought that anything else could come out of
it.   Note that this was uttered in the context of ethics.

Best,
Huw

On 2 January 2016 at 03:04, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
wrote:

> It's a little disappointing that they oppressed their own conversation at
> the following point, no?
>
> Martin
>
> 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 <lpscholar2@gmail.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
> thread.
> > 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>
>
>
>