nettiquette
Nat Bartels
before, but there seems to be a surprising lack of nettiquette on
this list compared to others I've experienced. Somepeople, Ron Sheen
is by far the best example of this, have a way of phrasing their
ideas so that they could be interpreted as personal attacks. For
example, in a recent post he wrote:
>However, all was not for nought. It has made me realise that one
>can now "publish" for the world wide reading public basically any
>article one wishes without its being subjected to any form of review
>process. That article can then be made part of one's CV. Not a
>happy thought.
This does not say directly that the Lians produced the
article that was under discussion on the list purely to pad their
CVs, but it certainly can be interpreted that way. Talking about lack
of "reputable" applied linguists in their bibliography leaves open
the question of the status of perhaps lesser known applied linguists
in their bibliography. This could be construed as implying that
these people are "non-repuatable". To me, a phrasing such as "The
Lians' bibliography does not include many important works in applied
linguistics on this subject" rather than talking about "reputable"
linguists seems much more neutral.
Others, recently Andrew Lian and Greg Matheson, have resorted to
cheap shots and character attacks. For example, Andrew wrote (among
other things):
> All of these years wasted reading Guberina,
>Wode, Rivenc, Long, Krashen, Weizenbaum, Schank, Minsky and more
>recently Bourdieu, Lyotard and others who have relevant things to
>say. I could have saved myself the trouble and simply read Sheen
>(who??).
This seems to be a classic example of a cheap shot.
>You may have heard that Australia has recently been going through an
>interesting time politically with a person called Pauline Hanson
>leading a party called One Nation, whose agenda is clearly racist.
>Many of us believe that parliamentarians should have stood up and
>turned their backs on her and refused to engage in debate with her.
>
>Ronald Sheen, I turn my back on you.
As I have already pointed out, Ron often writes in a style that can
be offending, but comparing him to out and out racists like Pauline
Hanson clearly oversteps the normal bounds of nettiquette.
Greggs "psychoanalysis", I am sure even he would admit, is a clear
personal attack on Ron.
The question for the list is then: Do we have some sort of
nettiquitte for this list? If not, would one be good? Is this list a
place for personal attacks? Would it be possible for everyone to
stick to more neutral language and avoid phrasing which can be
interpreted as insulting? As I wrote not long ago when someone made
fun of a PhD students request, on a list whose members are teachers
of one sort or another, I find it startling how we act towards one
another. Perhaps people could write in a style that they would
address their students with, as this list, at least for me, is an
opportunity to learn.
Nat Bartels
Zentrum fuer Kognitionswissenschaften
ZHS, Universitaet Leipzig
PF 3540
04109 Leipzig
Germany
Tel.: 0341 97 37865
mail: bar...@data.ntz.uni-leipzig.de
Ronald Sheen
is by far the best example of this, having a way of phrasing his
ideas so that they could be interpreted as personal attacks.
Mea culpa. I apologise to anyone who may have felt so attacked.
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.
DONALD D CASTEEL
while, and I do enjoy a good fight, whether I'm in it or not. I should warn
you that I'm not an academic in linguistics or any other subjects; just a
guy who spent his life learning languages (for use), and is now trying to
share some of what he thinks he's learned. Anyone curious is welcome to
vist the Platiquemos website (url below).
I "joined" SLART-L at the suggestion of Ron Sheen; while I have never met
Ron I have enjoyed and agreed with his contributions to FLTEACH for some
time, have shared a few personal exchanges with him, and respect both his
knowledge and his skepticism about the contributions of "research" to the
learning of foreign languages by Americans (and Canadians and Brits, too, I
guess). The only somewhat substantive comment I have refers back to a
thread that went on about a month ago, and probably only tangentially at
that. I have had the fortune to "acquire" or "learn" (actually a bit of
both) five languages at the "3" (US Govt scale) level or better as an adult,
three Germanic, one Romance, and one Fenno-ugric. Based solely on my own
experience, I do believe that there is something to the idea that we can
learn to learn languages, by that I mean that each language learned becomes
easier. Whether that has to do with the confidence of having had a success
or two, or some deeper process I'll leave to the experts. If I had to bet a
month's pay on one of two people starting to learn, say, Mongolian, both as
absolute beginners but one of whom had successfully learned a couple of
other totally unrelated languages, I wouldn't have to think a minute about
where to put my money--without knowing anything else about the two, their
IQ's, educational level, etc.
Anyway, the purpose of this message is really about some of the nasty
personal stuff I've seen directed at Ron--who can be very acerbic, even
perhaps cutting, in his arguments. One member of SLART-L gently pointed
this out to Ron recently, and I think he [Ron] very graciously apologized to
any one who may have felt personally hurt by any of his comments. I'm still
waiting to see an apology from Andrew Lian for calling Ron a racist [how he
drew
that out of any of Ron's comments totally escapes me, but that is, of
course, the ultimate put-down in certain quarters]; likewise from the person
whose name I don't know who posted the ridiculous and insulting
"psychoanalysis" of Ron; connecting Ron to Chomsky is perhaps the unkindest
cut of all.
I have nothing personal against people personally attacking me. I have read
with great pleasure some of the vicious personal attacks directed by
supposedly highly civilized and civil Brits (including my hero Winston
Churchill) against their intellectual opponents. One of the reasons we're
in the mess we're in is, in my opinion, our fear of calling a spade a spade
(or a f-----g shovel, as someone once accused me of).
Finally, a question for you language experts. I've seen "here, here!" as an
expression of agreement in several messages. Shouldn't it be "hear, hear!";
or am I just further exposing my ignorance?
Don Casteel (who has been told many times that you "can attract more flies
with honey than with vinegar"; and who has sometimes retorted that, if
attracting flies is your thing, good old b.s. beats 'em both)
Spanish for adults in the U.S. and abroad:
http://www.Platiquemos-LetsTalk.com
Tommy McDonell
PLATI...@PRODIGY.NET writes:
<< I have been "lurking" (what a sinister-sounding term) on SLART-L for a
while, and I do enjoy a good fight, whether I'm in it or not. I should warn
you that I'm not an academic in linguistics or any other subjects; just a
guy who spent his life learning languages >>
I suspect there are others lurking like myself. I run an esl program, go to
grad school, and am a lowly adjunct at a private college-- but I don't
consider myself to be an academic such as I've found here or hear. And for
the first time in probably 20 years of going to schools or being around them,
I'm glad.
I am, however a widely travelled listserver and telecommunications 'freak'.
In a former life my masters was interactive telecommunications, before I
started SLA.
Email or listservs if you will allow us to be long winded and sometimes ruder
than we might be in person. Print seems to be more inducing than the sound of
our own voices. We get caught up, and sometimes overly so.
I sometimes wonder if nettiquette wouldn't be better served if we behaved as
we would if we were meeting at a conference face to face.
Tommy McDonell
Executive Director, Learning English Adult Program, Inc. of NYC, NY/USA
http://www.weleap4esl.org
Ania Lian
> Talking about lack
> of "reputable" applied linguists in their bibliography leaves open
> the question of the status of perhaps lesser known applied linguists
> in their bibliography. This could be construed as implying that
> these people are "non-repuatable". To me, a phrasing such as "The
> Lians' bibliography does not include many important works in applied
> linguistics on this subject" rather than talking about "reputable"
> linguists seems much more neutral.
As I said before and got a reply to everything other than what truly
mattered: show me, in any of those "reputable" or "not-reputable" works,
the places where the case is taken with those who have problematised
meaning: i.e. from the perspective of perception not production.
It seems that if all literature on L2-pedagogy has been about
comprehension, it would be worthwhile to look at comprehension from the
perspective of the "form" that is to generate it and which we are dying to
teach (the kind of "facts of language"). But I now know that Derrida (or
the like) is *not* on the list of respected references in applied
linguistics (unless the censorship of this list acknowledges his value).
This is why the discussion on the Shaolin was not about *form* (although
the paper was) but about things that the couple of people involved felt,
it should have been.
Such an ability to show is what I call an academic exchange (and I *did*
show the core of the differences). It is not about screaming that
"I have a better God" and therefore have a right to declare your
work whatever name sems right to my tongue".
If, however, no "Gods" can be shown that their work belongs to the same
sphere of concerns, then the task of comparison of the intellectual
frameworks is a different task, not that of the Shaolin's paper. It is a
huge task: my own PhD is about such a work and it barely touches the
surface, with its over-500 pages. But few may realise it.
Btw., the lack of knowledge as to what applied linguistics is is evident
in statements which equate it with language pedagogy. One look at the
invitation for papers to any appl. lx conference proves my point. The
very definition of appl. lx has been questioned by many in literature (for
reference just browse through some journals. Browsing is a good thing as
we say in our paper: you can find what you did not think you would:
unpredictability of browsing:-)).
Ania Lian