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

[Martin John Packer]

> 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

But the speakers themselves set up this expectation! Here are the remaining remarks:

MS: Yes, exactly. Indeed there are norms even of these other components, these non-denotational components as we were saying. They're understood in terms of a folk system of enrigisterment, but there's lots of other variation as well that people are actually behaving in terms of and working in terms of. But this one particular, massively complex system - to which indeed the aspiration of working under the umbrella of superdiversity responds - is indeed a complex one in which people confuse standard register with normativity in the first place, and they confuse language with denotational structure. So all of these sorts of things that we've taken decades and decades to pull apart, at least so that they become visible to us as students of languaging, as it were get collapsed into one. And most importantly and - as you pointed out - most tellingly, they become instruments of oppression and stratification.

JB: At the individual level.

MS: At the individual level, through various kinds of institutionalized forms so that you are summoned as a citizen-scientist to say: 'Where do I stand on using my knowledge to, as it were, maybe illuminate people, maybe reveal what's going on.'

JB: At least show what's going on. That's the least we can do.

MS: That's the least we can do. There is a wonderful scene in the 1939 Hollywood movie 'The Wizard of Oz' in which...

JB: 'The witch is dead'

MS: no no it's not that the witch is dead

JB: ...a hit a few weeks ago when Margaret Thatcher died

MS: that's a different story! Leave the Baroness out of this... there is a wonderful scene in which Toto - the little dog of Dorothy - pulls back a curtain when you see the mountebank, the snake-oil salesman, working the levers of the machine that's running this thing which supports [purports?] to be Oz. And we can certainly try to be that little Toto.

JB: So on that note thank you very very much, Michael. 

MS: Well it's always a pleasure to talk to you guys!

On Jan 1, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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>
>> 
>> 
>>