[lg policy] RE: lgpolicy-list Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37
Kerry Taylor-Leech
Kerry.Taylor-Leech at USQ.EDU.AU
Sat May 22 00:55:37 UTC 2010
That's just it Gareth. We don't analyse any discourses on this list. Articles are generally posted here without comment . That's because the list operates as a sort of resource or repository for various discourses as you say, and not all of them to our liking. There are two issues really: The first is the question of whether to post up inflammatory material like the BNP stuff at all. The second, is whether we critically interrogate the ideas/discourses in this sort of material.
The general consensus seems to be that we want to see this sort of thing on the list. It's useful because we can't always find it anywhere else. I'm not saying we should censor this list. I'm saying either we develop a statement to make it clear what this list is about or we do actually get down to the business of interrogating the discourses. Last rejoinder from me.
Kerry
Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech
Lecturer in Applied Linguistics
Faculty of Education
University of Southern Queensland
________________________________________
From: lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu [lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of lgpolicy-list-request at groups.sas.upenn.edu [lgpolicy-list-request at groups.sas.upenn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, 22 May 2010 2:00 AM
To: lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
Subject: lgpolicy-list Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37
Send lgpolicy-list mailing list submissions to
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lgpolicy-list-request at groups.sas.upenn.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
lgpolicy-list-owner at groups.sas.upenn.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of lgpolicy-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: lgpolicy-list Digest, Vol 13, Issue 36 (Gareth Price)
2. Lie to me: Research shows young liars destined for greatness?
(Dennis Baron)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:31:40 -0400
From: Gareth Price <gareth.price at duke.edu>
Subject: [lg policy] Re: lgpolicy-list Digest, Vol 13, Issue 36
To: lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikuZU80P0qqFKPu6IbM9HWeaa8WPRY6knsZLA2l at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I wasn't going to chime in on this, but here's my two cents, for what it's
worth. Kerry - I think you're getting things a little mixed up here. For
starters, much (though not all) language policy analysis is situated -
broadly - within the church of discourse analysis. It's not possible - or at
least it's intellectually sloppy - just to pick and choose the discourses we
like, and fit our arguments, and discard those that we don't, and don't.
Disregarding discourses we don't like to hear about is also quite dangerous:
we can put our heads in the sand, but these are discourses that *will*
operate - in public spheres and private - regardless of whether they appear
on this list. We have a hard enough time trying to talk about social justice
and equality and rights - our task is made very much harder if we have no
idea what our audience (our students, laypeople, policymakers) actually
think.
At the end of the day, these discourses work *precisely* because they make
sense to someone, somewhere. Ideologies and discourses aren't some
'falsehood' counter-posed to some objective 'truth'. Language policy
researchers who believe that 'everyone should be able to speak whatever they
want' are as ideologically encumbered as the BNP who think that language -
and race - should be the defining criteria of citizenship, democratic
participation and basic human rights.
Our task is to try and unpick what these discourses mean, and *how* they
operate, not referee their acceptability or otherwise. I'm going to use a
crass analogy here, but I think it works: I can't imagine many surgeons are
very fond of cancer, but it wouldn't be very helpful if the field of
medicine en masse decided to believe that cancer didn't exist.
It's not, either, necessarily that BNP discourses have become more
'acceptable' and they are posted here 'without comment'. I'm not sure that's
the whole dynamic here: what seems to be clear is that this has definitely
raised the hackles of at least a few people here. I don't think anyone here
finds them 'acceptable' or thinks that this is 'free airtime' or
uncritically accepts them. In fact, the list serves an extremely important
purpose *by the very fact* that it is something of a repository for
counter-discourses - and acts as a good barometer for what's really going
on, out there - on the streets. I also don't think there needs to be a
statement 'condoning material that encourages race hate, conflict and
discrimination' - I think that's a given. But what I do think we need to do
is critically interrogate these ideas - and try and understand why - for
some people - they make a whole lot of sense.
Dr. Gareth Price
Visiting Assistant Professor
CSEEES/Linguistics Program
Duke University
Durham, NC
27708-2960
>
> Anthea
> Your response seems contradictory to me. First you jump on the the list
> member who dared to question why material was being taken direct from the
> website of an extreme right-wing organisation which affliates itself openly
> with Nazism. You want this member not just excluded from the list but
> blacklisted as well. Then you want everyone to be open and unpolitical and
> you seem to be saying that we can't differentiate a fascist organisation
> from any other group. These are old arguments - they were used to stall anti
> racist movements in the UK years ago. Thankfully the local communities
> didn't listen to them and there was a time when groups like the BNP found it
> hard to spread their lies and hate. In posting on their materials for them -
> for free and without comment - you are doing organisations like the BNP a
> big favour. It's not about being politically correct or not offending
> people. It's about being careful not to give free airtime to these dangerous
> organisations. It would be!
> quite possible for this list to have a clear statement of its values and
> an explanation of its practices. It would make it clear that the list does
> not condone material that encourages race hate, conflict and discrimination.
> Kerry
>
> Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech
> Lecturer in Applied Linguistics
> Faculty of Education
> University of Southern Queensland
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:04 +1000
> From: Kerry Taylor-Leech <Kerry.Taylor-Leech at usq.edu.au>
> Subject: [lg policy] RE: Policy on publishing racist and fascist
> material on the list
> To: "lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu"
> <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <FF76F99476D1B84DB0A8A96DC7AA53DA2E5158BB20 at EXCHMB.usq.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I agree that it is useful (if sickening) to read these types of article so
> that we can "know our enemies" but with this kind of fascist material one
> can never be complacent. Any exposure of this kind of "literature" provides
> it with oxygen and airtime. These organisations know what they are doing
> when they write their inflammatory material and they aim to insert
> thmelseves into debates anywhere they can.
> I think it is quite wrong to attack those list readers who question the
> posting of this stuff on this list. Fascist material cannot appear on the
> list uncriticised. Doing so provides these organisations with another
> platform. Let's not forget that the NP ran for a seat in the recent British
> elections in a constituency where they would have once been run off the
> streets. That's how acceptable their ideologies have become. Yes post this
> garbage up but not without a loud and clear statement that this list does
> not support racist and fascist ideologies.
> Kerry
>
> Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech
> Lecturer in Applied Linguistics
> Faculty of Education
> University of Southern Queensland
> ________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________
> From: lgpolicy-list-bounces+a.f.gupta=leeds.ac.uk at groups.sas.upenn.edu[lgpolicy-list-bounces+a.f.gupta=
> leeds.ac.uk at groups.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Kerry Taylor-Leech [
> Kerry.Taylor-Leech at usq.edu.au]
> Sent: 20 May 2010 00:31
> To: lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
> Subject: [lg policy] RE: Policy on publishing racist and fascist material
> on the list
>
> I agree that it is useful (if sickening) to read these types of article so
> that we can "know our enemies" but with this kind of fascist material one
> can never be complacent. Any exposure of this kind of "literature" provides
> it with oxygen and airtime. These organisations know what they are doing
> when they write their inflammatory material and they aim to insert
> thmelseves into debates anywhere they can.
> I think it is quite wrong to attack those list readers who question the
> posting of this stuff on this list. Fascist material cannot appear on the
> list uncriticised. Doing so provides these organisations with another
> platform. Let's not forget that the NP ran for a seat in the recent British
> elections in a constituency where they would have once been run off the
> streets. That's how acceptable their ideologies have become. Yes post this
> garbage up but not without a loud and clear statement that this list does
> not support racist and fascist ideologies.
> Kerry
>
> Dr Kerry Taylor-Leech
> Lecturer in Applied Linguistics
> Faculty of Education
> University of Southern Queensland
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:58:36 -0700
> From: "Stan Anonby" <stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org>
> Subject: Re: [lg policy] The Colonisation of Britain Continues: 16% of
> PrimarySchool Children Do not Speak English as Their Home Language
> To: "Language Policy List" <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
> Message-ID: <D5DBAAD41FAF403B9F0098C0C3151D13 at silq5ubwwaom4w>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
> reply-type=response
>
> Hah!
>
> Great suggestion, Christina!
>
> Stan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christina Paulston" <paulston at pitt.edu>
> To: "Language Policy List" <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [lg policy] The Colonisation of Britain Continues: 16% of
> PrimarySchool Children Do not Speak English as Their Home Language
>
>
> > Hal,
> > I have a better suggestion. Just cut off from the list and blacklist
> for
> > the future people who just want their opinions
> > published (like whoever Davyth and others are) and who don't understand
> > that it is crucial to know what all opinions are.
> > Then we don't have to waste your time repeatedly with this stuff. Keep
> > up the good work -- I and my students are most grateful to you,
> Christina
> >
> >
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/private/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20100520/3eadf685/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:51:26 -0500
From: Dennis Baron <debaron at illinois.edu>
Subject: [lg policy] Lie to me: Research shows young liars destined
for greatness?
To: language language policy <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>, ads
ads <ads-l at listserv.uga.edu>, wpa <wpa-l at asu.edu>
Message-ID: <494366EF-F7F0-47C5-98AC-E00AF82EEAA4 at illinois.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
There's a new post on the Web of Language:
Lie to me: Research shows young liars destined for greatness?
A Canadian research team has found that toddlers who lie could
actually wind up more successful than those who tell the truth.
At least that?s what the BBC claims in its report on a new study which
proves that learning to lie represents a ?developmental milestone? and
that ?the complex brain processes involved in formulating a lie are an
indicator of a child?s early intelligence.? And the London Times
gleefully adds, ?Scientists have discovered that a child who claims
?the dog ate my homework? may have a future career in the City
(London?s version of Wall Street).?
Newspapers, TV, and blogs are having a field day repeating the story
that young liars have what it takes to succeed later in life, as if
precocious prevaricators could explain everything from the subprime
mortgage d?bacle to the Iraq War, the impeachments of Bill Clinton and
Rod Blagojevich, and Al Franken?s critique of liars on the extreme
right.
But it turns out that most of the reporting on this study of lies and
the lying children who tell them isn?t very accurate. To put it
bluntly, the media are lying about the research. Whatever you may have
read in the papers, developmental psychologists are not claiming that
lying is the key to getting ahead.
find out what they are claiming -- read the Web of Language http://bit.ly/weblan
____________________
Dennis Baron
Professor of English and Linguistics
Department of English
University of Illinois
608 S. Wright St.
Urbana, IL 61801
office: 217-244-0568
fax: 217-333-4321
http://www.illinois.edu/goto/debaron
read the Web of Language:
http://www.illinois.edu/goto/weboflanguage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/private/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20100520/7975a9e3/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This digest came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list:
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription, visit this web page:
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
End of lgpolicy-list Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37
*********************************************
This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the
intended recipient(s) only. If you received this email by mistake,
please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.
The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily
reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland. Although all
reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no
viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses
arising from its receipt.
The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of
education with the Australian Government (CRICOS Institution Code No's.
QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M)
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
More information about the Lgpolicy-list
mailing list