This sounds like an interesting idea provided people have the technology - are you thinking about any particular languaging context? If Gordon is back, I recall we used a classroom video to ground comments on one of his papers a year or so ago. I wonder whether we could also use a mother-infant episode?
On Thursday, July 14, 2005, at 01:40AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Hi Phil, Ruqaiya, and all others:
>I was just thinking that these comments slip again into the abstract,
>leave out the contexts in which things happen. And this makes me think
>that perhaps we should try to work through these questions by taking a
>brief videotape, share it via the internet, and then work through some
>of the language issues grounding ourselves in the video, going back to
>it whenever we talk about language.
>Would something like this be interesting, feasible? Mike, what do you
>I am thinking about something like we have done in a conference
>session, also involving Jay and a few others; the different
>interpretations were subsequently published online.
>But in the present case, I would think that the tape, the situation, is
>the touchstone that we could use to hold each other accountable for
>what we say/write.
>On 13-Jul-05, at 6:53 AM, Phil Chappell wrote:
>> Dear Ruqaiya,
>> It's good to have you back! As you can see, the discussions are
>> covering many territories. Just a quick comment - your response to my
>> thoughts (below) appears that you read me as somehow "defining"
>> sense-as-thought and meaning-as-context. If this is so, that was
>> unintended and a stylistic error. What I was attempting to do in that
>> rather rough posting was to lay the ground for readers without a SFL
>> background to appreciate the idea of congruency - highly relevant to
>> the current discussion of *language in situ*. You say "The "higher
>> strata" ie context semantics and lexicogrammar are held together by
>> the dialectic of realization". This seems a hot topic for the most
>> recent half-dozen posts. Unfortunately, you are the only SFL academic
>> joining in here, which makes for a rather wiggly path to be woven.
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> When it comes to talking about the "same" thing in language, we often
>>> rely on the orthographic/phonological (or philological) identity of
>>> this may delude us into thinking that what we are treating as the
>>> same words
>>> must (or even ought to) mean the same thing. But it is just a
>>> delusion. For
>>> example, as a linguist, I feel quite puzzled by Phil's statement
>>> (communication of 11 July in response to Mike's original message on
>>> subject) that when "confronted with the concepts 'sense' and
>>> 'meaning' I (ie
>>> Phil) immediately attend(s) to the notion of thought and context." I
>>> think I know any linguists who would feel comfortable with this way of
>>> looking at these two words.
>> xmca mailing list
>xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:06 PDT