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

[Xmca-l] Re: What is a Pedagogy of the Oppressors?

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 <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henry,
> Franson Manjali's 5 page summary I thought was a wonderful summary of where
> 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 list
> [with more understanding of linguistics within anthropology and psychology]
> I hope we may possibly read shared articles on this theme.
> Or alternatively, I could *listen in* as others more informed on this topic
> 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* this
> 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 summary
> 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 share
> 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 <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 offer
>> 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 thread,
>> oppression, and a way out of the opression itself might be fruitfully
>> construed in the light of dialog/discourse analysis. Of especial interest
>> to me is the final paragraph of the article:
>> "It may be concluded from the above deliberations that after defining the
>> basic premises of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987), mainly
>> 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 to
>> issues which had been the main object of linguistic inquiry before the
>> advent of generative theory. Langacker (1991) offered a number of analyses
>> of different linguistic phenomena utilising the earlier defined notions and
>> premises of cognitive linguistics. It has become necessary to verify
>> theoretical constructs and predictions in terms of new empirical data. Two
>> 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 these
>> research domains offer massive corpora of unidealized, raw linguistic data.
>> Attempts to describe discourse may serve to demonstrate how linguistic
>> knowledge is utilised by real users in real context, while attempts aimed
>> at describing the process of language acquisition may demonstrate how this
>> knowledge is really shaped in contextualised grammatical ontogenesis under
>> the pressure of various mental and environmental factors. On the other
>> hand, Langacker’s (2000) dynamic usage-based model may well provide a more
>> adequate framework for an insightful and comprehensive description of the
>> 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 <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>>> Larry and others,
>>> I am interested in "structures of feeling." Would you recommend anything
>> in particular by Williams?
>>> I think I am with you (if this is what you are saying) that a vocabulary
>> of sensing and feeling are important and frequently overlooked or swept
>> under the carpet as if feeling were proof of weakness and not of humanity.
>>> Also please recommend any reading by Levinas?
>>> Thank you for your additions to the soup.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Annalisa