James Paul Gee – “From Grammar to Society”

James Paul Gee – “From Grammar to Society”

my name is Jim Gee. I work here and you
guys asked me to talk so you have to suffer through this. I’m going to talk to
you today as a linguist and a relatively disgruntled linguist for the last 40
years, so let’s start with an interesting question. I mean, I do discourse analysis
now as one enterprise and you know linguists like grammar I started my
career as a syntactician and there’s a kind of we don’t have really
good ways of talking about grammar and we have sort of the problem that if you
do discourse analysis or in linguistics you, you use a lot of grammar as a
foundation but you don’t stray too far into the social you get up to maybe
social interaction conversation but you certainly don’t get all the way up to
institutions, usually. On the other hand many people do kind of thematic discourse
analysis and have a lot to say about politics, society, institutions but you
never hear anything about grammar. So the two don’t meet very well and so even
though I know we all take grammar for granted
let’s ask why we have it what it’s for and I don’t mean grammar and grammar
books I mean the one in your head. So we are pretty sure that you have grammar in
your head in some fashion and we’re pretty sure I have a farm and a lot of
animals and I’m pretty sure my donkeys don’t right? That was one of Chomsky’s key
points is that donkeys don’t have it and we do. But I want to ask what’s it doing
in there. Now probably I mean even though it’s
controversial, seems to me it shouldn’t be, there has to be some sort of biological
instinct for grammar in human beings because they can learn any human
language right. It’s baby you could steal them and put them anywhere. We’re pretty
good at it and all human languages have some similarities that probably if
Martians have language we wouldn’t have for example they all have predication
and they’re based around proposition in philosophical sense clauses in a
linguistic sense. So let’s just marvel at that fact.
Now of course grammar is also something that isn’t just situated in your head
you learn a specific language and that gives you a set of social conventions
that take your grammar in a certain direction but what’s it doing sitting up
there why do we have it what do we get for it
why don’t donkeys have it and it doesn’t do us any good and then what should it
be its role in analyzing the social now people like Chomsky have argued this is
not a point he cares a lot about but he’s argued that you know lots of people
who are in applied linguistics think language is there it evolved for us to
be social or for us to engage in communication or for us to engage in
social collaborative endeavors right that is kind of an argument that a lot
of people make Chomsky said no I mean it’s probably there for us to think with
it’s probably how so if you think about it I mean we can certainly think without
language but if you’re thinking in terms of language that is the grammar of a
language you’re thinking proposition lis and there are lots of things you can do
in thinking propositional e that the donkey can’t do for example you could
say boy I wished I had done that much sooner then I then yesterday because now
I really regret having done it right the donkey can’t say that can’t think that
that’s involved what I’ve asked art I’ve asked I know donkeys – I’m multilingual
let’s just assume they can’t maybe they can actually I consider animals quite
superior to human beings so that was not a not a criticism now so and and it
probably is true I mean that humans think in certain ways that are certainly
facilitated in some part by the fact that our languages have certain
structures I want to take though and start with another idea it doesn’t
exclude any the other ones you know lots of things can be true and that is that
grammar is assists of choices right it gives you choices
and that humans unlike probably donkeys are built to communicate with each other
by making and signalling choices right think about this I mean if all if they
only made ties in one color you could wear a tie or not wear it high and then
that choice would make people say well why did you do that why did you wear a
tie that brother that knot or not and then figuring out why you made that
choice will become part of the public meaning of wearing a tie right very
simple if there’s only one color though making the choice to wear that color
won’t buy you anything there’s lots of colors like very bright colors and very
dark colors then I can say well why do you know the answer there may be no
answer to the question but I mean what we humans do is we raise the question we
think you don’t show off choices for no consequential reason now grammar is
replete with the ability to make choices I mean it is the resources by which you
can say not the same thing but similar things in a great many ways now I’ll
give you an example this is a real example it comes from an article that
was on CNN back right after Trump got elected and there was a conference that
white nationalists were at I mean it wasn’t a competence just for white
nationalists really but it was and this guy got himself in trouble so this is
the beginning of their article a member of a white nationalist group was
bloodied Saturday while confronting a large group of protesters right that’s
how the person wrote the thing now if you are a speaker of English you know
there are 4,000 other ways to say that right none of them can mean exactly the
same thing because there is kind of a principle in linguistics there’s no
truce anonyme right but they’re in the same ballpark so we could have said a
large group of protestors bloodied a member of a white nationalist group
Saturday or a white nationalist was injured
when he provoked a large group of protesters or a shoving match ensued
when a white nationalist confronted a group of protesters Saturday and we
could go on forever I could make different word choices
phrase choices Clause choices active versus passive modal not I mean you know
we could go on literally for almost forever now the capacity that we have it
be as native speakers of a language the capacity we have to be aware of all
those choices at least subconsciously is quite incredible so there are studies in
psycholinguistics that show and and that when you hear a sentence that sentence
might have dozens of ambiguities that in the possible meanings by its structure
if you take the structure in one way or the other
and that one theory is we quickly as our syntactic processor runs through all of
them and then uses context and semantics to exclude all but one right that we
actually process the entire thing it’s not consequential whether you believe
that or not but all I’m saying to you is there’s an English speaker you could
readily make up more choices so the theory that I’m pushing which is just a
theory by the way I’m trying to get a theory so I can make a model and make
some predictions and explanations of things which I’ll end by giving an
example of the the theory here is that these four things have meaning for two
reasons one is they had meaning because you know the meaning of the words and
the phrases and sentences and two because you know that having said it one
way excluded all the others by the way this is the oldest you’ve read SACEUR
this is the oldest principle in linguistics that so one of the ways you
do it I’m gonna argue that you interpret that especially if you care about it as
your ask yourself well why did she use bloodied or why did she use the white
member as the subject and not the protesters why confronted rather than
provoked right because if you care about their growing out what she means you are
trying to set why this was chosen now you know this is this is
the whole thing I mean the first part of the real article a member of a white
Nationals group was bloodied Saturday while confronting a large group of
protesters outside the site of a Washington conference celebrating Donald
Trump’s presidential victory now here’s my rewrite of it and I’m using
information that I know the reporter knew right so I’m gonna put more in this
than she did that’s another choice how much information to put in and how to
package that informations choice and here’s what how I would have put it why
I’m not a journalist a large group of protesters bloodied a man attending the
annual Washington National Policy Institute conference which this year was
celebrating the election of Donald Trump when he approached them with a video
camera and a microphone and what appeared to be an attempt to film an
interview with one of the protesters now notice I put an information that would
really kind of change your attitude a bit you certainly will wonder wonder
what a conference about policy is doing celebrating the election Donald Trump
right and it also tells you that this scuffle was over him trying to interview
somebody by putting a microphone in their face now my point just is that’s
the little mini theory that choices matter and that and I first want to
argue we do this all and lots of things that aren’t language still in ways the
donkey’s don’t and let me give you an example because what I’m arguing here is
grammar is a system of choices that are particularly built to give certain sorts
of meanings by us thinking about the other choices that were available an I’m
going to show you later literally what those types of meanings are but we do it
another semiotic systems you don’t have to use language do this here so and the
other semiotic systems because they’re nowhere near as complex as language the
the thing gets much simpler but still very complex so here’s the picture don’t
stare at the fact that one of the people in this picture is in the audio
this is a picture of three people now obviously I chose those three people so
you are probably why did he choose those three people and you probably saying he
chose that guy in the middle cuz he’s so good-looking right what what is this
picture tell you why do you think I chose it it’s three people there have
different ages you surely see that you don’t think I’m as old as Dave Berliner
I hope the man’s you know I worked for him in 1974 I was a mere child so these
are three professors from three different generations all of them went
got their PhD at Stanford all of them are Californians by birth as
far as I know Berliner certainly was there when he was young and he’s the
generation of academics before me and it was not the least bit uncommon for those
academics to wear a suit when they were being a professor in fact most of my
professors wore suits by the time the baby boom became academics they dress
like this right notice no suit in fact they wouldn’t
I’ve never worn a suit to class and I would bet you there was just a boatload
of people my age who haven’t done it and then the third one is a very young man
from the current generation of academics who is dressed even more casually than I
am in the picture now this you know that for posts berliner for me and Brian we
had a choice he owned suits actually he could have worn a suit he could have
worn anything I don’t own one but I could buy one I could afford one now in
my old age so you know we made a choice and uuu but what I want you to look at
this is this is is this like a grammatical system right because you
know that choice you know when you wear a shirt like this it isn’t the shirt you
would have worn with a certain suit you know that if you’ve been are in our
society these are not biological they’re just social conventions but if you don’t
know them you don’t know what any of this means
now let’s say we wanted to explain so the normal explanation for why people
address this is they just wanted to but see that
would leave out the fact that most people not all in Berliners time dress
that way most people in my time except for psychometricians dressed the way I
did at least in the fields I was familiar with and a lot of people
certainly all the young people I have taught would dress like Brian so it’s
not can’t be just individual choice now there are actually theories about this
it’s been written about and I’m not going to bore you with them but if you
wanted to explain how these choices arose and what they mean and what they
function in society it’s actually very complicated so there are people who have
written about this as formed by status that in the age before me professors
were paid similarly to business people saw themselves at the same status level
of business people had a secretary and and dressed like them by the time the
baby boom comes along the status of professors has fallen below the status
of business people and so there there is a theory I’m not pushing these theories
I’m telling you they’ve been written there is a theory then that you know my
generation is dressing down in order to thumb their nose that the status people
who have higher status like them business people to show it doesn’t
matter to us that we’re our own people and I don’t know people haven’t written
about Brian’s generation but he is in the age where tenures about to go or is
deteriorating further that’s one theory another theory that by the way they
could both be true is people have written a lot about how over the last
several hundred years in Western society there has been a trend to mask this the
display of status and power that is to hide it so you could see each of these
is part of this masking that berliner is displaying status more overtly than me
and I’m displaying it more overtly than Brian and the next generation will be
nude will be displaying it less so this what point my point that I don’t care
what you believe I just care that did you see that if you
see this as designed set of choices available
conventionally society to explain that will involve you will first have to show
the grammar of clothes and it won’t be the same for different societies then
you will have to show how do people meet what are the ways socially
institutionally culturally that people make meaning of that and then of course
you could say what are the effects it’s complicated right there’s a real theory
but you are going from a grammar this one are very simple sorta alright that’s
the point that’s the theory if you don’t like it you can leave no because you’re
not gonna like any of this so now I want to ask ok I why are human beings built
to be this way and why did we build the ultimate system of choice grammar that
gives us nearly infinite choices why why it didn’t we how did it make us a
certain sort of creature and what sort of creature did we have to be in order
to evolve this system and here I’m going to go back to a very old theory that I
played with when I was child and I still think is important but it is absolutely
a theory that comes out of an earlier form of Marxism that people would
consider quite irrelevant to linguistics and then one of the themes of this talk
is if we’re gonna build bigger theories that get across academic silos and deal
with the issues that are complex and whole we are going to have to begin to
ask are there theories out there that at first seem irrelevant but they actually
might be quite relevant and maybe when we understand them pretty identical to
the ones we developed in other words right that’s part of the thing now
so here’s imagine I’m standing on a curb with my arm up and you have to say
that’s an interesting choice why is he standing there well pretty much but not
exactly the same gesture could be hailing a cab or I hitching a ride and
you’re gonna look in the context and say one of the other might be true but
let’s say I’m doing this and a cab drives by because he has he has taken
that signal to mean hailing a cab he gots and I get into the cab at that
point your regardless of my intentions here regardless of what I meant I have
hailed a cab right that’s public meaning I can’t say oh no see if I say no I
don’t want to K I have no intention of paying you well now you just made it a
different action a trip to jail so on the other hand if somebody comes
by in a regular car and picks me up and I get in then I have hitched a ride
I’ve hitched a ride and again if I say well you know I I demand to pay you I’ll
just be an eccentric hitchhiker I will not be a cab passenger now this little
type of example was used by this rally at one time still but one time quite
well-known Marxist theorist after writing in the after the 58th Hungarian
Revolution where people were trying to give formulations of Marxism or more
humane and what he would say is going on in this little scenario of cabs first by
the way think of uber is that a different is he would talk about people
come together constituting mutual subjects or what we could call
identities right what he called them subjects and and he had a very
interesting point to make about subjects for you to be a subject for example to
be a cab driver that is it subject means a type of person doing something that is
an identifiable as an identity right or a role if you like that and so for you
to be a cab driver a cab passenger requires some social force he talked
about institutions that allows that to happen sets up the conventions by which
that can happen and the interesting thing went so it allows you to be an
agent subject in the agent sense notices word comes from grammar it allows you be
a subject in the agent sense I can be a cab driver or I can hail and get a pass
a cab but on the other hand he pointed out that this
social force that allows you to be an agent to be an actor he is always also
making you subject to it you’re subjected to it because you have to I
can’t ride the cab without being subjected to the conventions and laws
and rules and regulations of the cab driving companies and the same with
hitchhiking I have to be so he’s pointing out that the cost was he out by
the way I’m taking all the Marxism out of this not because I don’t like it but
because that’s something we’d have to add back in with with a different
political theory in my view so the cost of being an actor socially an agent a
subject of a sentence a transitive sentence is also to be subjected by some
force to which you in in the process of subjecting you to sit yourself to the
values the norms the conventions of that force then you become an actor right
you’re both subjected you’re both a patient is linguist say in a case or
object of a transitive sentence and you are a subject they go together now in a
typical terms of those days he called he’s talking about institutions as the
social force but he says that subjects that is people like cab drivers or by
the way a perfect example professors and students I can be I’m a professor right
now and therefore I look like I have a lot of aging action but I can only be
this actor if I subject myself to the rules of the university if I branch into
a lot of sexually in window my role will change quickly right so he calls the
actors the subjects that are produced by this force that he calls institutional
apparatuses the idiy an ideological effect which he means by this is that
that social force institutions has norms and values about how the world is or
should be ordered what did what is the proper way to do things are what is the
proper hierarchy of people what are their proper ordering of things and he
calls any he really can’t act out something meaningful unless you have
some theory what’s the proper ordering of things here and he calls that
etiology and says that in the act of us joining those values conventions and
constraints we act on that order of things produce ourselves as an actor but
are subjected to that order which could be in some cases a dominant order that
he’s screwing us that’s the Marxist bit all right now the
other thing just to point out to add to that it that he doesn’t do as much but
we certainly know is not only does that whatever the social force is produce
actors that is you know professors or cab drivers or politicians or anybody
else it also constrains the topics that is
the talk the content of what you can do see so right now in order for me to be a
professor I have to subject myself to the ideology of the institution middie
ology much is not here being used as a dirty word that is the values and norms
about how things are ordered and I also have to follow their values and norms
about the what I can talk about right it’s pretty wide but it’s not infinite
by any means I could show you that but I’m too old
all right now I myself so what is this force now for him that force was
institutions because he was interested in how institutions in capitalist
society both create actors and then in the process constrain them in certain
ways that create forms of domination but today you don’t have to have an
institution to see this work of a social forest constituting subjects of a
certain type so for example we have a lot of things let’s say you went on to
the many internet sites that are fanfiction they will constitute you as
an agent that is a fanfiction writer only if you subjects yourself to the
values and norms of how readers are ordered how reading is done how its
responded to that however is an emergent property of the people over time not an
institution right this is not a not a brand new thing in the world but with
the internet it is a very much it’s gotten much bigger as we don’t need
institutions anymore to constitute a value system in terms of which you
become an actor who is constrained right this can happen in these emergent ways
and in addition of course if we could ever agree on what the word culture
means cultures are clearly such a force but we really do need to be more careful
but that word means so I abused in my past work and it does
not matter the word discourse is with a big deed that just means to me any set
of things and forces and and ways in the world that creates identities like
professor by setting up a set of normative order and backing that up
often with some constraints that can be enforced in some ways but you can call
it anything you want one of my themes here is reasonably makes a little
progress in going across silos we can never agree what the word means and
furthermore you can never greet the two words we’ve used means something similar
or not right so I don’t want to get fussy about the words now this is just a
small point before I go on to the examples so it’s back to grammar I was
using that neo-marxist theory of subjectivity if you want to use term
that nobody knows what it means then but it you know if you think about it that
thing of a force that sets up norms in terms of which you can have a subject
and an object and a topic is the trans da is Trant what Halliday calls
transitivity right it’s the heart of language that is an agent that puts a
force on an object and that he not only argues that’s the center of grammar but
transitivity that is this system of subjects as agents and objects as
patients which we can reverse right because of the choices we can make one
the other and the other one that that really is the structural foundation of
humans theories of causation and acting which is central to a human being right
so what you can say is that this if the theory that I laid out of the
mutual construction of actors is a social theory and a political theory
it’s really the acting out in the world of human views of causation and actors
and respond mostly humans causation is not like in physics our theories of
causation are always interlaced with theories of responsibility who’s
responsible for something right I don’t know how far we want to push that but
it’s cute all right but let me stop there if there’s any questions about
that because I’m gonna give an example and then quit but if I’ve been totally
unclear or if you thought I was nasty to my sources speak up or forever hold your
peace Art’s already accused me of insulting
donkeys yes we could I mean I’m all for anything with a capital G you know there
it would be an interesting concept to it you know I don’t want to go into this
but you know we have very very poor use of formal semantics because linguists
have theories of formal semantics that they never spell out of how it gets to
situational meanings and people who believe in situational means don’t
believe in formal semantics but the way I would formulate formal semantics would
be in a type of thing that analogous to a Big D discourse but that is a you know
a system of core concepts that then are instantiated much like the what I just
gave there okay so now let me so my argument is this that grammar is our
best system for making choices but we have a billion of them that we are built
to communicate with each other in part by a system that says I make a choice
you know the possibilities by york asking why did why did i make that
choice you’re asking what does it mean that i did it but also what does it mean
that i excluded the other stuff and then to make that meaning you
have to consider all the social and cultural knowledge institution knowledge
we have in common right you have to know a lot you have to be a social
theoretician right on the ground so but on the other hand if this is how the
human mind is partly built and it’s partly what we married a grammar then
it’s also how we represent stuff in texts and in talk that is we we don’t
use language just to construct along with other stuff subjects we also often
use language to construct subjects in a certain way right and and we can’t
understand that language in that practice unless we have this lens I
argue and it’s consequential right I want to argument to give you an example
its consequential how people do this and grammar plays role in this and it must
because if this thing that’s giving the foundation of the choices plays a role
it’s got to be consequential than what happens so here is I’m gonna look it so
you you know that even though this is not how Halliday or Tchaikovsky do the
grammar that there is a type of grammar that’s usually called pattern grammars
that grammar has a lot of patterns that already have a meaning not just so it’s
not just words the patterns that meanings no slots of them and here is so
here’s a pattern that I’ll call the locator pad this is a little bit grammar
there are people who hate this stuff but here is the locator pattern the the
locator pattern is a way to locate one thing in reference to another and
there’s two ways to do it right so you can say John is standing next to the
fountain or John is next to the mountain and basically the two they both in the
local you’re locating somebody to a reference point in the first one you are
relating John and the fountain by the process standing by which they got that
way right and then the second one he just leaved the process out you’re
locating him to the fountain but you’re not saying how he got there but in both
cases this is a pattern of locating one thing in relationship to another
notice that when I say John is next to the fountain that isn’t a personal
property of John UK it’s not like you know John has black hair or John is a
courageous person it isn’t a property of John pair say internally it’s just a
property of space you can’t can you can’t compliment John on what a great
stand or next two fountains he is alright so in this pattern john is
sitting in the arms for John’s in the Oh John finished fourth in the race John
was fourth John place 90 John I mean it’s you can do it and all day long
right see I’m trying to belabor this because it seems trivial I’m gonna show
you it’s not trivial I’m gonna show you the grammar if seems a set of choices is
not trivial alright there now there’s another
pattern it’s just different from the locator pattern the personal property
pattern which says you have a property that’s part of you and one way there’s
two ways to do this to John is a tall person it gives you a property by saying
what group you’re in right he’s in the group of tall people what set are you in
you’re in the group of tall people or you’re in the group akashi John it’s a
cautious person Johnson african-american John is an honorable person but we can
also instead of naming the group you were in we can name the property the
group has and say John is tall John is cautious John is african-american
John is honorable right it’s pretty clear right so we have one way to locate
things and two ways to say it we have a way to give personal properties to
people in two ways to say it by the way are any of you old enough to remember
Gilbert Ryle and he killed betrayal fans god I gotta be the oldest person in the
room Wow well he talked about category heirs and
so since you don’t know him I’m not gonna attribute this to him so to look
original he didn’t use this example this comes from Arizona he’s been dead a long
all right so so category ours here is a sentence John scored three on
the english-as-a-second-language test John is a three on the English set what
pattern is that in is this locating John with something or is a giving of
personal property it by the pattern John scored three he is the process
which relates John and three on a list was scoring and then so John is three
just leaves out the process this is clearly grammatically in the locator
pattern the reason you are having a hard time thinking about this is exactly
going to be my argument some people have tricked you to put that
in the personal property thing and you’ve all been part of the process but
that is clearly just locating John on a list it’s a locator pattern now here is
some talk you know in this state a very benign state we have done many stupid
things educationally and one of the stupidest was the current block program
that we said that if you need to learn English as a second language you should
be taken out of your content courses and put on a literacy block to do you know
literacy for hours outside of content and determining your level there’s a
test in you if you’re one two or three on the test you have to take this course
and if you’re four you can be exempted I think that’s how it works and the
interesting thing about it is it violates everything we know about
research the people are losing content while they’re learning English learning
to read from one language to another is transferable so if you learn content in
Spanish you’ll probably learn to read English it’s transfer and you want to
floss the content you know we could go on and on but they did it and and of
course teachers it this by the way is a perfect example of an institutional
apparatus with an ideology you have a set of social forces namely sort of
institutions and policy makers in Arizona that create a value system about
how things should be ordered in this case who’s one two three and four and
learning English and then you can only be in eighth and
that unless your isn’t in unless you’re subjected to the system right if you
don’t get the score he can’t be an actor but if you get the score you’re screwed
right that was kind of them so here are so teachers this is a thesis that was
written here a few years ago with by a woman named Amy who’s in here and these
are teachers talking about their experience on to these classes so Erica
says but I think I probably probably seen this difference because I’m I’m my
classroom is the mix I have threes and fours so I can see like those students
who I have some threes that I swear could be forced
I don’t think they’re three and Amy the graduates who says what do you see is
the distinction between three and four and they say like they learn well I
don’t say they learn things faster but they seem to pick up a little faster and
then their output spoken English is so different and Joanie’s and other
teachers as between a four and A three yeah and Erica says so yes like the
output is different like they’re kind of the kids that will take the language
objectives and remember to use it they are the ones that are a little bit more
self initiated they you know but a three rather than two they will try to read if
you point to the words and follow me they will these are seen as differences
between a 3 and a 4 and then Joni says my home base is fours I mean they Rock
most of my kids rock what’s happening here a an attribute that makes me merely
locate you on a list he’s being put inside the person as a personal property
now since we you we certainly know there’s no research that shows she’s
saying threes are more proactive they behave better they do what you tell them
there there’s no research showing that the quality of your English language
link correlates with your conscientiousness right but she’s
assuming it does because look what’s happening the state legislated this
location a label and then it they have to act on
and they need to think it’s fair and real and so they’re attributing the
property to the kid that does not be something he’s wearing the jersey three
he’s got it in a soul but now we have to find internal definitional properties of
it productivity follow directions better you know whatever we’ve got it we’ve got
so what they’re doing is they’re are taking a category or they’re treating a
statement by the way of placing on a test is putting you on a list it has not
said anything yet about your soul it takes work to change something from the
locator padam the personal pattern so the so they’re creating a new type of
subject that has never existed before on earth a three there you go around and
say John you’re one of the best threes I know or God John you where you’re three
is a badge of pride or John you are really a two I saw into your soul and
you were a you was a three on the test but you are too and don’t think you can
get away with it right so this takes social works they are constituting from
a list a location a set of new subjects that allows the child to be an actor oh
you were a good three you did your three thing only if the child is subjected to
the system when the system is the result both of a category air that I would
argue amiss on deep misunderstanding of tests as what I think people like bog
miss levy who knows a lot more about tests than I do but in the act and this
constitution of course there’s a social force that social force was institutions
that through their ideology that are their ideas about how to order things
have created systems of domination and control and therefore really encouraged
the teachers to do the work necessary to change in this instance the locator
pattern into the personal pattern with deep consequences that a kid has guiding
attributes the teacher is assuming correlations Green attributes that have
no evidence but we know after assumes an accident there will be
evidence for it so that’s grammar to society and I think we can do a lot
better if we keep both in the picture but we have just we have I’m trying to
give you a model that makes some connection between them and I have done
so by appealing to an old Marxist theory that is by the way what you English
people call if you really build theory recipient design same thing it’s the
same thing with Bakhtin meant by patrick wisdom we could go on we have these
theories the theory of apparatuses or social force the discourse is the same
theory that people want deal with community of practice or activity theory
you see my point is it looks like old-style Marxism but
in fact we’ve formulated these theories over and over again and then bickered
over the words and not related to them back to the very system they’re
therefore so I’ll make the bold claim with no evidence that grammar exists in
your head and not in the donkey’s because we are part of a system of
control and domination by our very standing as the type of creature thank
you you


  1. Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *