papal quote

[Alexandre Enkerli]

I'm probably off, here (it's late), but...

Isn't the first one (value of quote) related very closely to specific
language ideologies?
As a French-speaking Montrealer, I'm finally beginning to understand
(today, and thanks to the Word Nerds) what English-speakers in the
U.S. have against indirection. It's been puzzling me for years.
And now, when the Daily Show mocks the "it was just a quote" defence,
it seems to fit more in the pattern of "anything you say can, and
will, be used against you in a court of law." (Including the
heavily-politicized and emotional notion of "free speech" in
contemporary U.S. society.)
In this context, a quote seems like it should be backed up by the quoter.

As for the second one, are we interpreting an apology to be the result
of a loss of social face or the statement of a moral superiority?

Just thinking.


On 9/20/06, Susan Ervin-Tripp <ervintripp at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> The recent exchanges regarding the papal speech make me wonder about
> two cultural features worth comparing across languages:
>
> 1. What is the social meaning of a quote?  If a religious person
> quotes, without
> directly marking the quote as being one he disagrees with, do people assume it
> is a statement of belief? How does one make use of an objectionable quote
> and disengage from it?
>
> Of course, speakers at long-winded conferences where bits can be selected by
> the press are especially vulnerable to having their comments de-contextualized.
> People I know who deal with the press a lot are very careful about
> this possibility.
>
> 2. What form does an apology take?  is the propositional content supposed to
> be about what one did oneself or about the "victim."
> An apology is a speech act that must be culturally particular.
>
> Susan Ervin-Tripp
>


-- 
Alexandre
http://enkerli.wordpress.com/