rejoinder

[SANCHEZ JOANNA M]

Dear Dr. Karttunen- (** please forgive duplicate message)

	 I want you to know that you have never disappointed
me; on the contrary-your knowledge of Nahuatl as a formal language system
is an excellent resource.  Likewise, your willingness to set things in
order by proffering your expertise is always a welcome sign of your
professional generousity. I consult your work often, and am always
grateful for anything you have to add to discussions.  Likewise, Joe
Campbell's contributions are invaluable to all of us.

	I understand where you linguists are coming from. And that it is a
fine and healthy mode of inquiry.  As for myself, I am neither
overly spiritual, of Mexican descent, nor, I'm afraid, intellectually
gifted.  I am, however, a firm believer in open dialogue between academics
who can bring a variety of perspectives to bear on the study of Nahua
language and culture.

	My perspective is based on semiotics and semantics of language
use, a field not wholly independent from that of linguistics.  Where we
part company is that rather than focusing strictly on language as a
rule-governed system, I study discourse structures and ideologies of
language use.

	All scientific inquiry must start by establishing certain operating
assumptions. Traditional approaches have of necessity relied on an
assumption that presents itself from the matrix of Western language
teleologies- that reference is the prime function of language as a system,
and "that the divisions and structures of language should ...
transparently fit the structures of the 'real world'" (Woolard 1998;
after Silverstein 1979,81,85, 87).

Woolard says it better than I could ever hope to:

	"A dominant view in American anthropology and linguistics has long
cast ideology as a somewhat unfortunate, though perhaps socioculturally
interesting, distraction from primary and thus 'real' linguistic data; ...
we must look [instead] at ideas about the meaning, function, and
value of language in order to understand the degree of socially shared
systematicity in empirically occurring linguistic forms."

	I may be irrecoverably naive, but I am confident that
we can and should strive to maintain a healthy respect for each other's
endeavors.  I have the utmost respect for the discipline of linguistics
to which you have tirelessly dedicated your considerable efforts, and
shall continue to do so. If I post a question or comment, it is with the
fervent hope that I will not be considered frivolous, but that I will be
understood to be seeking out knowledgeable opinions- to be corrected, if
you will.

	My disappointment is not with the quality of opinions nor the
perspective from which they derive, but with the occasional failure of
some to recognize the validity of divergent approaches. And even this I
can understand as more a product of frustration with unfamiliar concepts
than as narrowminded cantankerousness. Please accept this in the spirit in
which it is offered- a genuine effort to extend the laurel branch of
mutual understanding.

		Sincerely, Joanna M. Sanchez.