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

[Larry Purss]

Henry, I sent a quick invitation to Franson and we will see what unfolds. I
hope his university email address is current.
Larry

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:52 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Larry,
> 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!
> Henry
>
>
> > 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>