> Seems to me she was using 'secret language' as a euphemism for
> describing
> certain latin terms as positional goods in securing advantage in an
> adversarial setting, especially with respect to the written word prior
> to
> the printing press.
I don't quite understand this. Could you please repeat it in ordinary English? What are "positional goods"? What advantage does she say was secured in an adversarial setting?
> Methinks you're conflating disputation with adversariality and
> aggressiveness.
I thought Tannen was doing that.
> And, you've just engaged in an ad hominem; what does that
> accomplish other than you've made one of her points for her
Where's the ad hominem? I am merely raising a question about her qualifications for pronouncing on Chinese intellectual history. (See more below.)
> .....Your
> knowledge of her knowledge of communication practices/norms in Asian
> cultures is, what, based on one example from an interview on the
> internet
> and yet you feel free to attack her?
True, she may have devoted a lot of study to communication practices and norms in Chinese intellectual history, but it doesn't look like it. Do you have any evidence in her published writings or public statements that she has? My assumption that she was speaking out of ignorance on this subject is based on my long experience watching Westerners who have not spent a long time studying the subject speak clear falsehoods about Chinese and other Asian sculture and histores. Also on my study of that general subject, though I grant that I have put more effort into Japanese than Chinese culture and history.
For many years I have seen academics, as well as ordinary folk, who have not spent any time studying the languages or cultures of China, Japan, and other Asian countries making offhand remarks about those societies based on the numerous stereotypes and misunderstandings about them which float around in the West. Sorry to say, it really takes a thorough study of one or more of these languages (which I admit are really hard and time-consuming to master) to understand correctly what is going on in those cultures.
I admit that I haven't read "The Argument Culture" yet; if I have time this weekend, I'll see if I can find it in the library and have a look at it. But based on a bit of Web searching for reviews of the book and comments on it, it looks as though I am right in my assumption that her references to Asian cultures are based on reading a few books about them (and apparently not quite accurately understanding what she read in them), rather than real research, based on knowledge of any Asian language.
I also question the correctness of her remarks on the history of medieval universities, but I won't get into that here -- this is already getting verbose enough.
> You're right she's just a dilettante working at a rather respected
> university with a great linguistics department who was hired because
> she
> only writes pop books and she can't cut it in comparative history of
> philosophy. And she never discusses those issues with her colleagues
> from
> those departments/disciplines.........
>
> http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/linguistics/
I didn't see her name on this site.
> http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/
I didn't see anything in her list of publications or biography to show that she has done any original research in Asian languages or cultures, though it seems that she has spent some time studying modern Greek culture.
I don't deny the fact that she holds an important position at a prestigious university, or that she deserves respect for her work within her own field. But The Argument Culture, like her other popular books, are not scholarly treatises. When she ventures into the wider world of cultural criticism, she is as prone to sloppy arguments and mistakes of fact as any other cultural critic.
On the question of her credentials as a linguistics scholar vs. her popular writings, you might look at what a couple of her linguistics colleagues say in the thread which starts at www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-1998.4/msg00014.
You also refer to Saletan's review at http://slate.msn.com/id/3053/. I don't see how he was whining; I thought he had some valid points, though I don't agree with all of the piece.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax