sorry -- an in-process version of this note was
sent prematurely and accidently while i was
typing in an accent mark!
------------------
hi again Michael (and all) -- while i am not
familiar with Poláková's work, i agree with an
approach that generally privileges relations
over language per se, but as i think you would
also agree, relations and language dialectically
infuse one another. language lends relations just
as relations make language possible as a
mediational means for communication.
i do not suggest that this relationship is
symmetrical however, and agree with Poláková on
this point.
s
>Steve, here one more thing that goes into the
>same direction from DIALOGUE AS A WAY TO
>HUMANITY, JOLANA POLÁKOVÁ
>
>
>In dialogue, language as a system of signs is
>just an aid to relation, which permeates
>language, appropriating it and creatively
>working with it. Despite modern linguistic
>reduction, he who speaks and that which is
>spoken of does exist outside language. The
>possibility of linguistic creativity is
>conditioned precisely by this fact. In case the
>world is identified with "the world of
>language", there is nothing to conduct genuine
>dialogue about and no one with whom to conduct
>it.
>
>In dialogue, language is adjusted to
>relatedness, not the other way round. Language
>receives its life from dialogue; without contact
>with what there is, it dies. Even my speaking
>Self becomes real or unreal depending on the
>extent of the reality I allow to enter into my
>words. If I am more my own myself in dialogue,
>this is because in it I intrinsically stand up
>for that which is - and then also my language
>meets its intrinsic destination. If I transcend
>it with a genuine contact with reality, it, too,
>will transcend me with a genuine contact with
>that with whom I want to speak. This
>transcendent character of dialogue is
>transferred onto everything that may serve it.
>
>The freer we are from language, the freer our
>language is itself. The system of signs can
>function only in relation to an indisposable
>reality. In the opposite case, it does not
>"mean" anything, but ceases to be itself.
>
>In the end, the predominance of relation over
>language means that a dialogic relation may
>cover more than could be communicated by
>language.
>
>
>Michael
>
>On 16-Jun-05, at 8:23 PM, Steven Thorne wrote:
>
>>
>>you've misread me. for clarification, the point
>>above had to do with my (possible mis-)
>>interpretation of your earlier (to me unclear)
>>statement about mediation.
>>
>>BREAK: Ana's note just came in. Michael -- as
>>you feel so strongly about what i (and possibly
>>others) have not taken account of/been
>>consistent with, why don't we move at least one
>>strand of the conversation in the direction Ana
>>suggests -- that you illustrate some concrete
>>examples using Buber in particular. what do you
>>think?
>>
>>steve
>>
>>>Back to the above point, the mediating
>>>relationship in the activity system, or for
>>>action, cannot be the same as that in the
>>>operation case, and this is exactly the point
>>>Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Buber and others seem
>>>to make in my view.
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Steven L. Thorne
>> Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics
>> Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
>> and
>> Communication Arts and Sciences
>> Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition
>> Associate Director, Center for Advanced
>>Language Proficiency Education and Research
>> The Pennsylvania State University
>>Interact > 814.863.7036 | sthorne@psu.edu |
>>http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM:
>>avkrook
--
Steven L. Thorne
Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics
Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
and
Communication Arts and Sciences
Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition
Associate Director, Center for Advanced Language
Proficiency Education and Research
The Pennsylvania State University
Interact > 814.863.7036 | sthorne@psu.edu |
http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 01:00:07 PDT