I’ve been struggling to connect my disparate thoughts on this week’s readings into a semi-coherent post. Yet I’m realizing that at the crux of my various reflections are the notions of borders, ruptures, and thresholds: aspects of our environment that exist in natural and man-made capacities, and that can simultaneously serve welcoming and exclusionary purposes. So far in class we’ve emphasized the locally-specific duality of linguistic practices: for instance, the way that pronouncing “Greenwich” as “GREN-itch” in Philadelphia reveals you’re not from South Philly, while pronouncing it the “Philadelphia-proper” way of “GREEN-witch” in NYC shows you’re not from the village. Both pronunciations of “Greenwich” are right, and both are wrong; and the practice of “citizen sociolinguistics” exists at the border of these separate/connected worlds. I want to situate the practice of “citizen sociolinguistics” in this way, because I think the “Greenwich” example illustrates the complexity ...
Thanks for posting this (Sarah?). In general, I like the attitude about the creative-writing AI: It's a tool that writers can work with--sometimes it has insights, sometimes its lame. In a way, it seems like Google translate: Useful in some ways, but often, you really already need to know both languages you are "translating" to know if it is being helpful.
ReplyDelete