Why own language, when you can go to a library?
Steve KK
At 9:50 PM -0500 04/8/2000, geraldine mckenzie wrote:
>Briefly -
>
>I've already deleted the post that's prompted this one but it
>referred to the ownership of language by the status quo (obviously a
>paraphrase) - my difficulty with this position is this - and I think
>it would be useful to speak of the English language rather than the
>rather more nebulous 'language' -
>How can the English language be said to be owned by anyone ? the
>crucial point is that there is no such entity but rather a variety
>of dialects, of areas (can't think of the right word) of language
>and one way poets can challenge the status quo is by avoiding
>'poetic language' and the traditional forms. The Language poets are
>only one example of those who have, with varying degrees of success,
>incorporated areas of language not considered poetic.
>Which leads me to another point - language (English or otherwise) is
>not an abstract but only exists as it is used, thus (for example)
>the language of the masters may be subverted by the usage of their
>servants, the overlays of meaning on so many English words is an
>indicator of this. As, perhaps, is irony - a mode of thought and
>thus of speech and writing. Poets can also subvert orthodoxy by the
>way they use language.
>
>Geraldine
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|