As a literary person, I find phrases such as 'Ethnolinguistic Turns', 'Diachronic Dialectology' and 'Paratextual mediation' a bit intimidating. This is not to imply that they are not absolutely central to the study of dialect, but it suggests a degree of technical expertise which I don't possess!I've reassured Shirley that (1) this is precisely one of the issues that I hope the workshop will address and (2) that the papers will be accessible to non-linguists. However, I wondered if anybody would like to respond to Shirley in any way on this blog - either by considering some of the literary aspects of dialect representation, or by providing a definition and/or background explanation for their more technical terms.
Generally, too, the papers don't appear to incorporate the more literary aspects of dialect representation e.g. why dialect is given to some fictional characters and not others, the social implications of dialect representation in novels, the artistic significance of the attempt at linguistic accuracy etc etc. (Obviously I'm speaking primarily from my own interest in nineteenth-century fiction here).
Maybe the Workshops will offer an opportunity to discuss some of these matters.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Message from Shirley Foster
I received this comment for posting to the blog from Shirley Foster, a colleague at Sheffield who will be attending the workshop. She was a bit concerned about some of the terminology used in the paper titles:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Jane, Shirley, all,
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to step forward as the culprit behind "Ethnolinguistic Turns". The phrase was badly chosen if it gave the impression either of special technical expertise--I'm no linguistic anthropologist!--or of a lack of interest in the "literary". So I thought I'd offer a brief explanation of why I chose it.
The simplest way to put it might be that the questions that Shirley's comment describes as "literary" are more or less the kinds of questions that I'm describing as "ethnolinguistic"--that is, as having to do with the relation between language and culture. To ask about the differential distribution of dialect patterns among different characters, or about the formal qualities of a writer's representation of dialect, is (I think) to ask about the ways in which special linguistic forms might be understood to index positions relative to "culture"--whether those positions are defined in terms of aesthetic authority; geographic mobility/stasis; or gender, race, class, sexuality, and so on.
I also use the term in reference to literary material in order to give a sense of the disciplinary muddle that characterizes the historical context my paper concerns, North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Franz Boas and Samuel Clemens were both members of the American Folklore Society, William Dwight Whitney and Sarah Orne Jewett both members of the American Dialect Society, and I suppose I was hoping to invoke a similar kind of multidisciplinary context for my own talk.
That's the start of an answer, anyway, to what I'm starting to realize is a very big question about disciplinary dialects! Very much appreciate the comment.
Alex Benson
Many thanks for this, Alex. It answers very clearly my concerns. I also see that we are asking the same questions, even with slightly different vocabulary!
ReplyDeleteI really look forward to your paper and the discussion it will undoubtedly engender. I'm also delighted that you will be talking about Jewett, a favourite author of mine!
Shirley