|
|
Re: emic/etic distinction
Walter Huber (huber@rusun.cs.reitaku-ac.jp)
Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:40:14 GMT
Subject: Re: emic/etic distinction
From: Acturner, acturner@aol.com
Date: 11 Dec 1994 20:45:51 -0500
In article <3cga0f$s0@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Acturner, acturner@aol.com
writes:
>In article <3bgsq8$sfb@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, acturner@aol.com
(Acturner)
>writes:
>
>Probably should not reply since I think there is more to phonology than
>insider/outsider distinctions. Can't we collect *etic data and perform
an
>*emic analysis that a native actor would concur with other than [merely]
>linguistic acts?
Yes, you should not have replied to this one since you seem to be adding
to the confusion. The emic/etic thing is little more than an *analogy*
from linguistics which simply translates from the *native point of view,*
then rationalized (intellectualized) according to presently agreed upon
scholarly (*scientific*) conventions. However, post-modern anthropology
has more or less obliterated (for better or worse) such quaint notions
which are probably better left in history of anthropology courses.
|