Re: emic/etic distinction

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Greggory Senechal: "Re: A word to the wise . . ."
• Previous message: Tom Byers: "Re: Threats and unacceptable behaviour"

acturner@aol.com (Acturner) wrote:
>
> In article <3ap3me$el9@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, ayoungone@aol.com
> (AYoungOne) writes:
>
> There is not much nowadays because Marvin Harris totally misunderstood the
> linguistic model and methodology. Because he was so influential, an
> entire generation of anthropologists mistook emic to mean
> insider=subjectivity and etic to mean outsider=objectivity. If you
> understand phonetics and phonemics, then you understand etics and emics.
> Similar points of articulation, be they in the mouth or out of it, give
> different meanings that are socially, hence, culturally distributed.

Presumably being one of the entire generation
of anthropologists you refer to, I can't help being surprised by this belated announcement
that we all got it wrong. Pike (1954), who originally coined these terms, himself quotes Sapir
approvingly re the insider/outsider 'analogy'. Your understanding seems
cryptic at best. Care to elaborate?

• Next message: Greggory Senechal: "Re: A word to the wise . . ."
• Previous message: Tom Byers: "Re: Threats and unacceptable behaviour"