Article on language and identity

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:48 pm

In case you missed it. Makes interesting reading:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/co ... 95,00.html

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:37 am

Certainly Chomskyan linguistics pays lip service to "universals" whilst concentrating on mainly "English" examples...but the article throws in quite a lot besides (implicitly) syntax (everything but the kitchen sink, it seems) and would seem to be more a plea against prescriptivism generally than providing a clear agenda for a more "encompassing" research paradigm (the stuff about Sapir-Whorf/LRH gets kind of lost after the first few paragraphs, which makes you wonder why it was really mentioned).

I'm thinking of starting a 'Critical of/"Anti-Pro-"Chomsky' thread, might link back to this...but I'd probably refer more to e.g. Bourdieu (have become aware of him courtesy of that book by Medina that I mentioned on the 'Brian Browser' thread, see link below) than Michael Silverstein or his "interpreter" Jan Blommaert (if and when the discussion is set to move beyond pure syntax).

http://www.continuumbooks.com/(yilx2t55 ... okID=13288

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:58 am

fluffyhamster wrote:Certainly Chomskyan linguistics pays lip service to "universals" whilst concentrating on mainly "English" examples...

Hmm. Interesting. A short digression if I may...

What is the difference between using:

Psychology studies the relationship between environments and human behaviour.

and:

Chomskyan linguistics pays lip service to...

In reference to:

Perhaps 'What does the study of whatever subject involve?', or 'Subject X is concerned with this and that and the other' would be more elegant (certainly less hurried) ways of putting things. I'm not saying that guys who write like that aren't "quality" writers, but they probably do rather feel (even if it is subconscious) that they are at that moment in their writing just doling out the basics (i.e. definitions) before getting onto the more involving stuff

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:11 am

Guilty as charged, m'Lord! I ain't never been no sophisticated writer, like.

And this ain't no Cambridge Yooniversity Press.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:17 am

Actually I have no idea if CUP employs people to watch out for this sort of thing, and I wouldn't let it distract from the preceding or subsequent arguments for long if (or should I say when, it's so frequent) I did come across examples.

Maybe we should ask Stephen Jones about it. (FH sits back panting, hoping the old "SJ/stone-throwing distraction" will work).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:16 am

fluffyhamster wrote: Guilty as charged, m'Lord! I ain't never been no sophisticated writer, like. And this ain't no Cambridge Yooniversity Press.

Un I fowt you weran xpert.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:27 am

Me an expert? Nah...at least not to the extent of challenging you on other fora (and I wasn't really challenging you on this one, either, with regard to those forms) - I mean, what is there to be an expert about exactly when the matter (that is, the meaning of whichever alternative form) is perfectly clear and not really that controversial? (Note that I only made the one or two "substantial" posts on the "What does psychology study?" thread).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:30 am

Maybe you can post a link to this thread on the "What does psychology study?" thread, and give up your attempted hijacking of this one, metal?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:40 am

Macavity would be bawling his little eyes out by now if you'd given him half the "TLC" you're giving me, metal (he did call you an "unpleasant type", after all LOL)...then again, perhaps he IS bawling his little eyes out now as I type these very words, precisely BECAUSE he would like the attention, any kind of attention, himself (I never could tell exactly what it is that he wanted). (Subtext: why don't you go welcome him back, m56?). Myself, I don't mind it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:20 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:Maybe you can post a link to this thread on the "What does psychology study?" thread, and give up your attempted hijacking of this one, metal?

Let's do a count on who has the highest number of off-topic posts in this thread, shall we?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Like I say, I made one or two "substantial" (=arguably on-topic) posts on the other thread. Admittedly the rest of it was clowning around...me, and, I thought, you too. Sorry if you weren't enjoying it as much as I thought you were. Should I go commit seppuku now, or wait for your reply?

As for THIS thread, I count one on-topic post from each of us (lol, me and perhaps you, although yours wasn't a very substantial comment - 'interesting' only?!) until you kind of linked back to the psych(o) thread and got us playing fun games here too.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:36 pm

How's this for a mind-blowing analysis of the language point that's been the talk of...um, Dave's ESL Cafe's AL forum for...um, the past...few...um...days...

Chomsky(an linguistics) pays lip service to...

See, like I said, absolutely mind-blowing!!!