Good to be back after 12 days in McCain country. (Very scary place. Almost as scary as what's happening with General Electric.) Linguistic competence at 20 paces ---------------> Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > WO: > > Given the prevalence of this expression [like] amongst my students in > Canada, the > > US and the UK, I have repeatedly attempted to deconstruct its meaning. My > > tentative conclusion is that the expression serves a particular > psychological > > and social function: it distances the speaker from an explicit and direct > > affirmation of the accuracy or truth of the utterance, and, thus, it > mitigates > > any responsibility the speaker may have for redeeming/justifying the truth > or > > rightness of the claim. To which MG, like, goes: > You wish. "Like" has all the meaning of "uh". Pure filler. It functions > like in "you know?" Like it serves as a kind of -- um, you know, like, a > breath gap. ------------------> My native speaker intuitions clearly conflict with Mike's native speaker intuitions. What do linguists do in such a case? Anthropologists? (We'll keep the philosophers out of this since this is not a philosophical matter. Unless of course somebody disagrees ...) MG: > Not everything is reducible to philosophy, Walter. -----------> Interesting philosophical claim. Is there not something odd or ironic about the "fact" that a statement regarding the limitations or falsity (wrongness, if you prefer) of (a) philosophical claim(s) requires to itself be a philosophical statement? MG: > Some things > preserve their like, you know, um, uh, hmm, purity of unmeaning despite all > or cognitions.. -----> I don't understand that sentence. WO: > > The most systematic explication of the "like" phenomenon in social and > political > > contexts, is provided in John Rawls's "Political Liberalism." Like, you > know > > what I mean? No claims of substantive truth or rightness are involved. MG: > Well, uh, hmm, I guess I'm like going to have to go with Rawls here. It's > all just made up as far as I can tell. Truth is just a wild ass guess. But > some of the made up makes more sense than other made up does -- at least > according to my make up of make ups. In other words, I don't believe in > revelation. ---------------> I don't find this intelligible. Some of it is self-contradictory. For example, to say "Truth is ...," is to make a truth claim - specifically a truth claim about truth. How can such a claim itself be a "wild ass guess?" Surely not even Sarah Pailin would claim that (unless propmpted to do so). Back in the saddle, Walter O. > > > Mike Geary > Memphis > for sure > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <wokshevs@xxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "David Ritchie" <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: None Dare Call It Reason > > > > Quoting David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > >> Paradox that occurred to me while walking: > > > > WO: Was the paradox that dawned upon you that you could never possibly > arrive > > at > > your destination and yet you did? If so, beware of the giggling > milkmaids. > > (They may take you in.) > > > > > >> the generation > >> characterized by over-use of "like" struggles when asked to formulate > >> comparative statements for analytical purposes. > > > > WO: Given the prevalence of this expression amongst my students in Canada, > the > > US and the UK, I have repeatedly attempted to deconstruct its meaning. My > > tentative conclusion is that the expression serves a particular > psychological > > and social function: it distances the speaker from an explicit and direct > > affirmation of the accuracy or truth of the utterance, and, thus, it > mitigates > > any responsibility the speaker may have for redeeming/justifying the truth > or > > rightness of the claim. ("Hey, I'm just talkin'. Like, what, I'm supposed > to > > always know why I believe what I believe? Or, like, I gotta be able to > prove to > > you that anything I says is right really is right? Like, who the hell are > you > > anyway? An what is "really right," like, really anyway. Who are you, > anyways, > > God? John Rawls?? > > > > On this theory, when it is said - "So when she told me that I failed my > test, I > > felt, like, how could I fail that test?!" - the "like" serves to qualify > the > > validity of the response and signals to others that any perception by them > of > > the speaker's certainty of the truth or rightness of the sentence uttered > is > > inappropriate and misplaced. The speaker thus shields herself from others' > > queries regarding any final validity of her claim since she is not > expressedly > > claiming the claim as presented/uttered. It's only "like" I'm claiming the > > claim, but not really - like, you know what I mean? (Yes, things get to be > > recursive, after awhile.) > > > > The most systematic explication of the "like" phenomenon in social and > political > > contexts, is provided in John Rawls's "Political Liberalism." Like, you > know > > what I mean? No claims of substantive truth or rightness are involved. > > > > Like, Walter O. > > MUN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> David Ritchie, > >> Portland, Oregon > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > >> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html