[lit-ideas] Re: SOS or Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 01:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
--- Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > *Well, in case of chair fortunately you can
> usually
> > point at a chair and so avoid definitions. In
> other
> > cases, you explain it by using verbal examples
> (e.g.
> > "junk food" - hamburgher) or paraphrase ("habit" -
> > something you do very often), or include in a
> larger
> > class ("Rothweiler" - a kind of dog.) and so on.
> > Sometimes you do use definitions, though I admit
> > seldom formal definitions. It's not clear how
> "self"
> > could be defined, or what one could point to in
> order
> > to explain it, or what would constitute an example
> of
> > it, or what category it belongs. I am far from
> sure
> > how I would even paraphrase it. Would probably do
> my
> > best to avoid using such a term in my lessons.
>
> Omar, believe me I'm not trying to be contentious,
> but your demand for a
> 'precise definition' struck me as a demand for
> something more than an
> ostensive definition or a rough account.
*I thought my last post pretty clearly modified the
previous claim that definitions were indispensible to
ESL teaching. I indicated the other procedures that I
use, and I also indicated that many of these
procedures do not amount to giving formal definitions.
I also suggested that most terms can be explained
without using a formal definition, but it's not clear
how "the self" could be explained. I am not sure where
the misunderstanding resides now.
In
> explaining what a Rottweiler
> is, I'm not sure one is defining 'Rottweiler.'
*I have already indicated that.
Of
> course to get anywhere
> in talking about Rottweilers with your students
> you'd want them to know
> that a Rottweiler was a kind of dog, and not a kind
> of mushroom or
> beetle. But the matrix '?is a kind of dog,' itself
> has to be understood
> by those to whom you're explaining this. And even I,
> a Terrier lover,
> can give a richer account of Rottweilers than the
> bare information that
> they're dogs, i.e., an account that moves in the
> direction of
> 'precision,' in a way that mere categorization does
> not.
*I'm afraid that I don't see how this is relevant.
Maybe I should know more about Rottweilers, but I
don't so I confine myself to observing that it is a
kind of dog.
> The procedures you describe might well be the
> beginning of teaching
> English to those who don't know it; but they'd also
> be the beginning of
> teaching words to those who do know it. That is to
> say, it's about what
> one would expect in ordinary conversation between
> those who do and those
> who don't know the meanings of particular English
> words*. What's clearly
> missing is what I took you to be asking Taylor for,
> namely, a precise
> (or 'formal') definition of anything.
> ---------------
*I thought that I could expect a bit more flexible
reading. I wasn't suggesting that explaining a word in
an ESL class is exactly identical to what I would
expect Taylor to do, it was more like an analogy.
Also, I didn't necessarily demand to Taylor to give a
formal definition, or a single definition. I would
though hope that he offers some clues as to how he
uses the word, and what he means by it.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
