Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Discussion

Expand Messages
  • Leoni Kotzé
    Thanks for your reply, Chad. I feel exactly the way you do about the Markedness Model. The problem with the motivation part, as you so aptly point out, is that
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for your reply, Chad.



      I feel exactly the way you do about the Markedness Model.



      The problem with the motivation part, as you so aptly point out, is that we
      simply don’t know. It remains a problem.

      Back to the drawing board . . .



      Leoni Kotze


      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.4/1227 - Release Date: 16/01/2008
      01:40



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
      Hello, Just a thought about this discussion on motivation in language alternation and choices . I wouldn t say that language usages are all automatic and
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 21, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        Just a thought about this discussion on "motivation" in language
        alternation and "choices". I wouldn't say that language usages are all
        automatic and subconscious. There are clearly cases of planned language
        choice. But "motivation" is a psychological notion (such as
        "accommodation") which asks about a 'Why', whereas discourse and
        conversation analysts ask about a conversational 'What for'. This 'What
        for' is not psychological, though, but discursive and interactional. And
        whereas we can claim that the What for (the conversational "orientation" or
        disposition to do this or that in terms of tasks at hand) also lies somehow
        in the speaker's mind (in the speaker's cognitive context about
        conversation itself, where else could it be?), one thing is to search for
        it as if it resided there prior to conversation and in the form of
        determining factors, and another thing is to *reach* this context and
        achieve its reconstruction after having examined discourse-in-itself.

        I think it's and old story, and the stance one takes depends on the
        explanatory power we assign (or prefer to assign, on the basis of
        specialization and other disciplinary routines) to Mind, to Discourse, or
        to Society, the three elements present, for example, in Teun A. Van Dijk's
        models of ideology, discourse, and context(s).

        -celso
        Celso Alvarez Cáccamo

        At 21:05 17-01-2008 +0200, you wrote:
        >Thanks for your reply, Chad.
        >
        >
        >
        >I feel exactly the way you do about the Markedness Model.
        >
        >
        >
        >The problem with the motivation part, as you so aptly point out, is that we
        >simply don’t know. It remains a problem.
        >
        >Back to the drawing board . . .
        >
        >
        >
        >Leoni Kotze
        >
        >
        >No virus found in this outgoing message.
        >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.4/1227 - Release Date: 16/01/2008
        >01:40
        >
        >
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >To Post a message: code-switching @ yahoogroups.com
        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        >code-switching-unsubscribe @ yahoogroups.com
        >Web page: http//groups.yahoo.com/group/code-switching
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.