3 ms·
Very interesting. At first blush (based on the title and first bit of the article) I wanted to offer an alternative explanation, something like: 1. People make
by FreakLegion 15y ago
Very interesting. At first blush (based on the title and first bit of the article) I wanted to offer an alternative explanation, something like:
1. People make sense of things through language. (You can get this sentiment in sound-bite form from any number of linguists or language philosophers, e.g. Wittgenstein's "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.")
2. People with more linguistic resources are better able to make sense of things, and thus tend to rise to the top of the pecking order. (N.B.: Language is more than just words, so this isn't simply an issue of vocabulary.)
3. People with fewer linguistic resources are drawn to the expressions of people with more linguistic resources because those expressions give them new ways to make sense of things. They're like design patterns for thought.
4. Thus, what's being measured isn't power or influence, at least not directly.
But of course none of this is relevant to the article, which draws its conclusions from the degree of periphrasis in a discussion, rather than the substance of what is said. So, again, very interesting.
- Qz 15y ago4. Thus, what's being measured isn't power or influence, at least not directly. I'm with you until this because it doesn't seem to draw from points 1-3.
- FreakLegion 15y agoYeah, that could be clearer. What initially struck me, before I'd finished reading the article, was the impending sense of post hoc ergo propter hoc. So my response, at that point, was to invert the relationship between copying and pecking order: a) "pecking order is an effect of copying" vs. b) "copying is an effect of pecking order." If b) is the case then it makes sense to frame the issue as "The way people copy each other's linguistic style reveals their pecking order." But if a) is the case then the article's conclusion is tautological. Of course you're right that that doesn't stop us from taking it as a direct measure of power or influence, since they're still strongly correlated. I was just thinking of it more as a measure of linguistic reserves [1]. [1] http://goo.gl/NOUwo http://goo.gl/NOUwo (Sorry to use a link shortener, but it's a long Google Books URL.)
- ximeng 15y agohttp://books.google.com.hk/books?id=6Buf_AlaadwC&lpg=PA32&ots=OTaAn2AT6c&dq=%22linguistic+reserves%22&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22in%20parallel%20with%20kafka%22&f=false http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=6Buf_AlaadwC&lpg=PA3... HN shortens automatically...