<< the core use of language is obviously phatic ... >>
Oh come on. Human language as just a hypertrophied variant of "How ya doin'?" or picking nits? And to think I was going to bother to ask you to elaborate on your dismissal of Chomsky.
A Boston Globe columnist has a running joke going, "The Arguably Watch," wherein he collects references to the use of the word "arguably" as a de facto synonym for "not" ("The 2000 presidential election is arguably the best possible argument for confirming the strength of American democracy," etc.). You seem to be trying to promote the word "obviously" to this level.
Phatic utterances are currently given serious linguistic consideration only in reference to the question, "Can phatic utterances even be considered language at all?" You apparently recognize this, or something, and perversely try to raise phatic utterances to some place of primacy:
<< Human society would collapse in months if not in days without the constant use of phatic language. It's our chief way of reminding ourselves and others that we and they are human. That seems to me to be anything but trivial. >>
You can go even further. Humans wouldn't be human without phatic utterances, in fact, as well as any number of other communicative behaviors--most of which have not a thing to do with language in any meaningful sense of the term. Now, one can try to go ahead and call any kind of often-ritualized non-verbal communication, from a tongue in the mouth to a sock on the jaw, as "language," and it's certainly used in tired metaphors all the time, but how "language" thus defined, in such a state of generality, can be subjected to any meaningful scientific study alongside actual, complex, continuously-unique creations of human language, is beyond me.
<< I would agree with most of your assault on logocentrism ... >>
You want to attack "logocentrism" in the study of human communication, and downgrade the importance of complex verbal communication, and focus on phatic utterances and grooming behavior and the like, feel free. But attacking *linguistics* as being logocentric is like attacking anthropology for being too centered on people.
And, after writing this, I get the queasy feeling that you and others here define contemporary linguistics as the study of human communication, rather than the study of human language, which I can only say will ultimately serve to enlighten no one on either human language or on human communication...
<< Consider the huge number of list posts (despite universal condemnation of the practice) which consist merely of quoting someone else's post and adding "I agree" or something to that effect. Purely phatic. >>
This is the level of your evidence? I would question whether any non-oral verbal message, even of this sort, can be considered truly phatic, and whether true phatic utterances can be made without real-time interaction with another human. But since you seem willing to define away "language" and "linguistics" to a trivial level of universality, you may as well go ahead and do it to "phatic"...
----Original Message Follows---- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Phatic Language, was Re: Race Math & Language Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:16:15 -0600
John Kawakami wrote:
>
> I'm no linguist, but it seems to me that language is first and
> foremost, a way to communicate simple verbal information.
I would agree with most of your assault on logocentrism, but you are almost certainly dead wrong here. This "theory" (it's almost too obviously wrong to be dignified with "theory") would be unable to explain the origin of language. But even ignoring that problem, the core use of language is obviously phatic -- i.e., used simply to acknowledge the presence of another human being. Probably the non-human practice languate most closely approximates is not signalling of any kind but mutual grooming.
Consider the huge number of list posts (despite universal condemnation of the practice) which consist merely of quoting someone else's post and adding "I agree" or something to that effect. Purely phatic.
Carrol
P.S. The word phatic does not appear in most desk dictionaries, which is most unfortunate because it denotes a major fact about humanity. It was coined by Malinowski. The OED claims that it is used mostly to indicate trivial or unimportant statements. This too is unfortunate. Human society would collapse in months if not in days without the constant use of phatic language. It's our chief way of reminding ourselves and others that we and they are human. That seems to me to be anything but trivial.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com