"How do you, personally, use the term "pro-American"?"
Pro-American.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Pro-American.
To keep the newbie happy...
"How do you, personally, use the term "pro-American"?"
"How do you, personally, use the term "pro-American"?"
I hope that's not too political 
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Is there such a thing....
Hey all.
Is there such a thing as being "pro-American"? Hope that one opens a can of worms....
peace,
revel.
Is there such a thing as being "pro-American"? Hope that one opens a can of worms....
peace,
revel.
-
tigertiger
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:42 am
Re: Is there such a thing....
From a Britrevel wrote:Hey all.
Is there such a thing as being "pro-American"? Hope that one opens a can of worms....
peace,
revel.
My personal perspective.
I would use the term 'pro-American' in a political sense. I.E. in support of US policy. E.G. Magret Thatcher was seen as very pro-American. But no implication of wnating to be American
In contrast, some UK politicians are seen as being pro Europe. And wanting Britian to be more European (politically).
Pro American could also be seen as in support of the American people, and to a lesser extent the culture.
-
toeflsmeagle
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:02 pm
This is metal50-something's idea of keeping me happy? Not a smart way of doing that.
To paraphrase myself from a related forum, the meaning of the term "pro-American" does not merit applied linguistic analysis the way, say, tag questions do.
My argument was simply that it's better to use this forum for things other than, well, political this or that. Already there's some guy claiming that "pro-American" is an insult somewhere on a scale that includes child molesters, suggesting that both groups have commensurate characteristics but differ only in degree. No reason to back it up, just a hit-and-run slur. Not exactly stellar discourse on his part, is it?
I'm not against opening a can of worms here, as long as it's pertinent to applied linguistics. The whole future-tense-or-no-future-tense debate I've seen before, or something of that nature, is all in good fun, and often productive. But comparisons between pro-Americans and pedophiles? C'mon.
Let me suggest that there are better ways to comport outselves on forums such as these, and that it's perhaps to speak constructively rather than with deliberate and wanton annoyance. Some of you have spoken constructively, and that's good. The pro-British and pro-European examples make sense. Beyond that post, is there much a point of going over this? We understand pro- and anti- as morphemes, and that their use is open to contextual interpretation. The sign above this door reads "applied linguistics," not "random political jibes." Thus, if what you desire is a political can of worms, then let it be known that you've walked into the wrong bait-and-tackle shop. Get thee to a political blog.
To paraphrase myself from a related forum, the meaning of the term "pro-American" does not merit applied linguistic analysis the way, say, tag questions do.
My argument was simply that it's better to use this forum for things other than, well, political this or that. Already there's some guy claiming that "pro-American" is an insult somewhere on a scale that includes child molesters, suggesting that both groups have commensurate characteristics but differ only in degree. No reason to back it up, just a hit-and-run slur. Not exactly stellar discourse on his part, is it?
I'm not against opening a can of worms here, as long as it's pertinent to applied linguistics. The whole future-tense-or-no-future-tense debate I've seen before, or something of that nature, is all in good fun, and often productive. But comparisons between pro-Americans and pedophiles? C'mon.
Let me suggest that there are better ways to comport outselves on forums such as these, and that it's perhaps to speak constructively rather than with deliberate and wanton annoyance. Some of you have spoken constructively, and that's good. The pro-British and pro-European examples make sense. Beyond that post, is there much a point of going over this? We understand pro- and anti- as morphemes, and that their use is open to contextual interpretation. The sign above this door reads "applied linguistics," not "random political jibes." Thus, if what you desire is a political can of worms, then let it be known that you've walked into the wrong bait-and-tackle shop. Get thee to a political blog.
toeflsmeagle
I disagree with everything you've said in this and the anti-American post
As I pointed out in the anti-American thread
I do not feel obliged to submit to your petty attempts to censure free speech: indeed such a perspective is in itself highly offensive to many! Nor do I concur with your view that you alone posses the right to decide what merits linguistic analysis.
Stephen
I disagree with everything you've said in this and the anti-American post
As I pointed out in the anti-American thread
As many educational materials contain political perspective (which is very rarely presented as such,) it is at times necessary to deal with it. There is no one correct political perspective which should be taught when politics enter into the classroom, but rather the language supplied should allow students to understand and express a number of political opinions; however objectionable you may find the fact that people disagree with you. I detest this idea that political debate should be smoothered by a lack of opportunity for those students who want to to learn the relevant language.The perspective shown in many American textbooks have extremely strong political and cultural positions although they are not openly presented as such. In that I mean there is no real admitance that alternatives exist, but rather a presentation of such attitudes as correct. Therefore, the political impact of language is relevant to many students.
I might add that the politcal and cultural representations in some textbooks I have used would not be inaccordance with the views of many students I have taught!! This is something of immense significance. Perhaps, making this point is also something that the newbie feels should be stifled. If this is so, perhaps, they should look at the politicisation of science and history teaching in the U.S.
I do not feel obliged to submit to your petty attempts to censure free speech: indeed such a perspective is in itself highly offensive to many! Nor do I concur with your view that you alone posses the right to decide what merits linguistic analysis.
Stephen
Asking people what they mean and understand by the terms pro- or anti-American is perfectly legitimate. And the fact that SJ included a smiley in his post should have drawn your attention to the fact that the remark was made in jest, and everyone else who posted answered Metal's question in a politically neutral way so I really can't see what you're complaining about.
This thread was well on it's way down the list before you posted on it again. If the content of a thread riles you, I suggest you let it sink, not send it back to the top.
This thread was well on it's way down the list before you posted on it again. If the content of a thread riles you, I suggest you let it sink, not send it back to the top.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
womblingfree
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:34 pm
Last time I checked Sociolinguistics and Discourse Analysis were still aspects of Applied Linguistics.toeflsmeagle wrote:The sign above this door reads "applied linguistics,"....... if what you desire is a political can of worms, then let it be known that you've walked into the wrong bait-and-tackle shop. Get thee to a political blog.
Maybe you should take thyself to a Lexis & Grammar blog?
-
toeflsmeagle
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:02 pm
Lotta misconceptions out there. Let's take them in no special order:
1) This whole thread was started in an effort to, as the thread-starter put it, to keep me happy. It makes sense for me to reply, saying that the person missed the point. I did not ask for such a thread, and I didn't want people out thinking that I did.
2) I do appreciate that some people kept politics out of their analyses, and acknowledged that in my earlier post.
3) How sociolinguistic is figuring out that prefixes pro- and anti- when attached to a country's adjective can be used with a little flexibility? This isn't that difficult to figure out. As for discourse analysis, we're just looking at a single vocabulary item, not at how it occurs across sentence boundaries. If what you are thinking about is so-called "critical discourse analysis," typified by people such as Norman Fairclough, this is a kind of propaganda masquerading as linguistics. It's not so much about how people use words as it is about Fairclough looking askance at Margaret Thatcher. Such analysis has been criticized by Henry Widdowson (and others, I'm sure) as being too overtly political, as has much of PhD discourse in the humanities throughout the last twenty years or so.
4) People should be instinctively worried about political tangents on the part of English teachers when it comes to an English teachers' forum on applied linguistics, vocabulary, grammar, or who knows what else. It begs people who, like one of the posters here, has some kind of beef with America (or any other country) and would like to express it, regardless how crudely. This kinda thing would be good for an off-topic region of Dave's.
5) It is not censorship to suggest that something is off-topic in a particular forum. The off-topic forums on Dave's implicitly suggest that people wander a bit too much and have been given a space to rant and rave with nothing especially relevant. It would only be censorship if I had coercive power over other forum members, which I do not have, to, say, hack their messages or have the government delete their posts. I don't have that power and certainly don't want it. (P.S. -- If the owner of this forum wants to delete anyone's messages, I would not consider that censorship, because it's Dave or whoever exercising authority over his own property.)
6) The discussion of American textbooks and how political they are has nothing to do with the topic of how the words pro-American or anti-American are used. One issue could be settled without bringing in the other.
7) There really is no teaching-relevant connection made between such words and what we should do about it in the classroom.
I do believe I've said my peace.
1) This whole thread was started in an effort to, as the thread-starter put it, to keep me happy. It makes sense for me to reply, saying that the person missed the point. I did not ask for such a thread, and I didn't want people out thinking that I did.
2) I do appreciate that some people kept politics out of their analyses, and acknowledged that in my earlier post.
3) How sociolinguistic is figuring out that prefixes pro- and anti- when attached to a country's adjective can be used with a little flexibility? This isn't that difficult to figure out. As for discourse analysis, we're just looking at a single vocabulary item, not at how it occurs across sentence boundaries. If what you are thinking about is so-called "critical discourse analysis," typified by people such as Norman Fairclough, this is a kind of propaganda masquerading as linguistics. It's not so much about how people use words as it is about Fairclough looking askance at Margaret Thatcher. Such analysis has been criticized by Henry Widdowson (and others, I'm sure) as being too overtly political, as has much of PhD discourse in the humanities throughout the last twenty years or so.
4) People should be instinctively worried about political tangents on the part of English teachers when it comes to an English teachers' forum on applied linguistics, vocabulary, grammar, or who knows what else. It begs people who, like one of the posters here, has some kind of beef with America (or any other country) and would like to express it, regardless how crudely. This kinda thing would be good for an off-topic region of Dave's.
5) It is not censorship to suggest that something is off-topic in a particular forum. The off-topic forums on Dave's implicitly suggest that people wander a bit too much and have been given a space to rant and rave with nothing especially relevant. It would only be censorship if I had coercive power over other forum members, which I do not have, to, say, hack their messages or have the government delete their posts. I don't have that power and certainly don't want it. (P.S. -- If the owner of this forum wants to delete anyone's messages, I would not consider that censorship, because it's Dave or whoever exercising authority over his own property.)
6) The discussion of American textbooks and how political they are has nothing to do with the topic of how the words pro-American or anti-American are used. One issue could be settled without bringing in the other.
7) There really is no teaching-relevant connection made between such words and what we should do about it in the classroom.
I do believe I've said my peace.
-
womblingfree
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:34 pm
Is this the same Henry Widdowson who, in his capacity as editorial advisor at OUP, gave his full support to the publication of the overtly political 'Linguistic Imperialism' by Robert Phillipson?toeflsmeagle wrote:If what you are thinking about is so-called "critical discourse analysis," typified by people such as Norman Fairclough, this is a kind of propaganda masquerading as linguistics. It's not so much about how people use words as it is about Fairclough looking askance at Margaret Thatcher. Such analysis has been criticized by Henry Widdowson (and others, I'm sure) as being too overtly political, as has much of PhD discourse in the humanities throughout the last twenty years or so.
Also the same Henry Widdowson who last year published 'Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis' (Widdowson: 2005)
Scholarly debate and development is all about discussion, often heated, over controversial topics. Otherwise we'd all be living on a flat earth that the sun revolves around whilst sacrificing virgins to help the corn grow.
Along with Norman Fairclough I suggest you also avoid Alastair Pennycook, Robert Phillipson, Jenny Jenkins, Braj Kachru, Suresh Canagarajah, David Crystal, Ben Rampton, Noam Chomsky, Constant Leung, Barbara Seidlhofer, Janina Brutt-Griffler, and in fact just about every published scholar for the last 2000 years that mentions political issues, including Henry Widdowson.
The use of the term 'anti-American' could fall under any number of aspects of applied linguistics, including pragmatics, indirect speech acts, implicature, context, co-text, pretext, critical applied linguistics & discourse!toeflsmeagle wrote:People should be instinctively worried about political tangents on the part of English teachers when it comes to an English teachers' forum on applied linguistics, vocabulary, grammar, or who knows what else. It begs people who, like one of the posters here, has some kind of beef with America (or any other country) and would like to express it, regardless how crudely. This kinda thing would be good for an off-topic region of Dave's.
The only off topic posts I can see are those (highly political) calls for an end to relevant debate.
As I said before the use of the terms 'anti-American' and 'unpatriotic' are often used to stifle debate and that seems to be exactly what you are seeking to do here. In fact your posts will make a good case study.
Discuss.
Last edited by womblingfree on Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.