Language as literature: Characters in everyday spoken discourse

There are several linguistic phenomena that, when examined closely, give evidence that people speak through characters, much like authors of literary works do, in everyday discourse. However, most approaches in linguistics and in the philosophy of language leave little theoretical room for the appearance of characters in discourse. In particular, there is no linguistic criterion found to date, which can mark precisely what stretch of discourse within an utterance belongs to a character, and to which character. And yet, without at least tentatively marking the division of labor between the different characters in an utterance, it is absolutely impossible to arrive at an acceptable interpretation of it. As an alternative, I propose to take character use seriously, as an essential feature of discourse in general, a feature speakers and listeners actively seek out in utterances. I offer a simple typology of actions in discourse that draws on this understanding, and demonstrate its usefulness for the analysis of a conversation transcript

How I learned to start the conversation

How I Learned to Drive by Paula Vogel, written in 1997, discusses a topic that no one really wants to talk about: Child Sexual Abuse (CSA). Yet the play is widely read and largely beloved because of the way it combines the seriousness of CSA with tasteful and appropriate humor. This project's aim was to introduce the topic of CSA to an audience of Vogel's play and to begin a dialogue with the audience about CSA.Thesis (B.?)Honors Colleg

Commonplaces in risk talk: Face threats and forms of interaction.

Talk about risk is problematic for interaction; it can involve the speaker or hearer saying things that threaten participants' 'face', the ways they want themselves to be seen by others. One way of dealing with these threats to face, and to keep the conversation going, is the use of commonplaces. Commonplaces, generally applicable and generally known arguments, play an important role in interaction, invoking shared, taken-for-granted perspectives embedded in familiar roles and everyday practices. They are similar to some of the frames discussed in risk communication, but they focus our attention on rhetoric and interaction rather than cognition. In this paper, I show how commonplaces are used in focus group discussions of public choices involving dangers to life or health. They tend to be used in response to dilemmas, when a speaker is put on the spot, and they tend to lead to other commonplaces. Analysis of commonplaces supports those who argue that studies of public perception of risks and programmes of communication about risks need to be sensitive to the personal interactions, rhetorical strategies, and cultural embeddedness of any risk talk

Why Dialogue?

Begin by considering the role of dialogue in the life of a morally reflective person-a person, that is, who seriously asks himself how he should live and tries to live his life according to the answers he finds most plausible. How does talking enter into this exercise in self-definition

20 years of Radical Disaster Interpretations: reflections and aspirations (RADIX @ 20!). Conversation on disasters: deconstructed on 13 October 2021

Purpose: This conversation presents the reflections from five prominent disaster scholars and practitioners on the purpose of Radix – the Radical Disaster Interpretations network – as the authors celebrate its 20th anniversary. / Design/methodology/approach: This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 13th October 2021. / Findings: The conversation reflects on personal and professional journeys in disaster studies over the past 20 years and on what needs changing in order to make disaster interpretations more radical. / Originality/value: The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around explorations of radical pathways for understanding and preventing disasters

Faith, Learning, and Success in Mennonite High Schools: What’s Working at Lancaster Mennonite High School?

The story about Lancaster Mennonite High School (LMHS) was written based on the perceptions and representations of what the participants said related to what was working and why. Every effort was made to portray the perspectives of those interviewed to get an accurate picture of what LMHS was doing to help students be successful, engaged in school, and develop a faith

The Freedom of the Christian for Culture

(Excerpt) It is somewhat surprising for Timothy Lull to be invited to address a liturgical conference of any sort. I was talking to several of my colleagues at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary this week about what I would be saying, and one of them said, Ah! Is Lull among the liturgists? He seemed surprised These colleagues wondered if you knew, for example, that I describe myself as a recovering evangelical catholic, or if you would know that I have the reputation in my congregation as being the great complainer about matters like the length of service, the fact that we sing no hymns written after 1750, that the basis for preaching almost never includes either the Old Testament or the Epistle lesson, and the kind of frightened anxiety with which we do things liturgical in our very liturgical parish

The Importance of Open Access

Jennifer Thomson, assistant professor of History at Bucknell University, interviews Jill Hallam-Miller, Dan Heuer, and Tammy Troup, Bucknell librarians, Scholarly Communications committee members, and Open Access advocates. The group contrasts the current closed model of scholarly publishing with the aims of Open Access. The discussion revolves around specific cases, describes the use of Open Educational Resources on college campuses, and includes comments about the recent decision by the University of California library to boycott Elsevier. The conversation concludes with a discussion about Open Access as a value at Bucknell University

Entangled: Romantic Love and Philosophy

In order to do philosophy, one must understand what it is. Often one has to develop this understanding on their own, since the philosophical canon has such a range of attitudes, styles, and objects. In this paper, philosophy is a dialogue, a conversation spanning space and time, as well as the inside of one\u27s own head. Philosophy is not something that can provide an absolute truth about reality; rather, philosophy is a means of describing how the philosopher thinks reality ought to be. To exemplify this understanding of philosophy, this paper is written as fiction. It follows two people as they try to determine what romantic love is, and why it was a neglected or minimized philosophical object for centuries. As the characters converse, they develop the concept of philosophy described above, discuss the place of women, passion, and reason in philosophy, and determine – to the extent they are able – that romantic love is something people do, rather than a feeling or state of being, and is based on an unjustifiable attraction to another person and Aristotle\u27s concept of friendship, specifically philia. The idea of romantic love being a practice, rather than an emotion or a state of being, seems to be uncommon in philosophical work on the topic. It seems just as rare, especially historically, to think of romantic love as being between equals, who mutually care for each other and commit equally to the relationship. This paper aims to point out the holes I have found in my reading on romantic love in philosophy and to provide new perspectives on romantic love in the hopes of prompting further and broader discussion on the topic

Progressive Neoliberalism isn\u27t the solution. We need a radical, counter-hegemonic and anti-capitalist alliance. A conversation with Nancy Fraser

During the annual meeting of the research network “Alternatives to Capitalism” held at the New School for Social Research in New York City in 2019, Professor Nancy Fraser engaged in a vibrant discussion about one of her latest books, “Capitalism. A Conversation in Critical Theory”, co-authored with Rahel Jaeggi (Polity Press, 2018). Here is a shortened and edited extract of the conversation