"interrogate the question"

[Joel S. Berson]

At 6/18/2009 09:42 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>"Interrogate" has been a favorite word among postmodern theorists for nearly
>thirty years.  It's what the Gestapo and the KGB were famous for, so
>naturally it appeals to powerless deconstructionists.
>
>I think Jerry's interpretation is right in this case, but that assumes that
>the writer actually had a grip on what s/he was trying to say - an
>assumption that Derrida roundly rejected. The law of the "infinite play of
>signs" says that whatever you think was meant is certainly wrong, or at
>least incomplete to the point of meaninglessness.
>
>And remember, language speaks you, not vice versa.
>
>Now don't you feel foolish?

Of course this question too cannot be answered.  But thanks anyway
for confirming what I suspected.

Joel


>JL
>
>
>On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: "interrogate the question"
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At 6/18/2009 07:51 PM, Cohen, Gerald Leonard wrote:
> > >Looks like a mistaken substituting of "investigate" for
> > >"interrogate."  And here "question" = "issue."
> >
> > I'd accept this explanation (excuse?) more readily if I hadn't been
> > coming across "interrogate" in (perhaps post-modernist or
> > deconstructivist?)* historical studies not infrequently recently.  I
> > don't, unfortunately, remember if those other instances are as
> > lacking in graceful expression as this one.
> >
> > *No one, of course, can answer this question.  "Any effort to explain
> > deconstruction is therefore doomed according to the theory
> > itself.  Any effort to say anything ["anything" italicized], in fact,
> > must go astray."  (Written by Steven Lynn, in _Texts and Contexts:
> > Writing About Literature with Critical Theory_.)
> >
> > >
> > >Gerald Cohen
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >  Message from Joel S. Berson, Thu 6/18/2009 6:23 PM
> > >To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > >Subject: "interrogate the question"
> > >
> > >
> > >Is there something wrong with the following?  And how might one say
> > >it in jargon-free, simple English?
> > >
> > >"That tradition may ...be considered in terms of five overlapping
> > >concerns: ... [one being] interrogating the question of black
> > >nationalism and colonization".
> > >
> > >In the OED, I see two possibilities --
> > >
> > >"{dag}2. To ask about (something). Obs. rare.", most recent citation
> > >"1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 132 Interrogating the State of Europe,
> > >the Government, Policy, and Learning."
> > >
> > >"3.b. With question quoted", e.g. "1824 L. MURRAY Eng. Gram. (ed. 5)
> > >I. 420 We may answer, by interrogating on our part; Do not those same
> > >poor peasants use the Lever and the Wedge?"
> > >
> > >But in both these forms, one doesn't interrogate a question, one
> > >interrogates (about) the subject of the question.  And my instance
> > >additionally doesn't fit 3.b. because it doesn't state (ask) the
> > >question, it merely gives the question (issue) a title.
> > >
> > >Joel
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org