Don’t Just Talk
(About)
the Talk
A Letter from Recursive Editor
Edak Krikmah
At my local monthly meeting of Linguist(ic)s and Vanilla Slices (LaVS), we got talking. No surprise there: we’re linguists! But then one of us (it may have been Wilhemina, but I’m not sure) made a passing comment on what someone else (perhaps Bertrand?) had just said. Then, and this is the crux of it, Bartholomew (and I’m sure this was him) pointed out that what Wilhemina had said had actually been about what Bertrand had said.
|
|
The organisers of the conference Traduire La Performance/Performer La Traduction, held in Paris, France, December 2019.
Chiasmus of the Month
October 2019
|
|
|
|
|
You’ve guessed it—we’re here to celebrate the highs and lows, the joys and sorrows, the tax bills and Last Wills and Testaments of meta-talk. What went on to transpire at the last LaVS meeting was that we spent the rest of the evening not only talking about the fact that Bartholomew had noticed that Wilhemina’s comment on what Bertrand had said was meta-talk (which counts of course as meta-meta-talk) but also talking about that very fact that we were talking about the fact that Bartholomew had noticed that Wilhemina’s comment on what Bertrand had said was meta-talk (which counts of course as meta-meta-meta-talk)! Fleas on the back of other fleas, anyone?
That just left one fly in the ointment, and that’s what we’ll be looking into at next month’s LaVS gathering: what’s the opposite of meta-talk? We’ve provisionally labelled this concept hyper-talk (or sub-talk), and are now busily looking out for it in our daily interactions and private moments of linguistic pondering. If you spot it, let us know!
Keep talking—and keep talking about (talking about ...) the talk.
