Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 06:48:07 -0500

From: Natalie Maynor maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU

Subject: Bounced Mail

When including something from a previous posting, be sure to edit out

ADS-L in the headers of the old mail. Otherwise your message will bounce.

Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 12:49:25 -0400

From: BITNET list server at UGA (1.7f) LISTSERV[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]

Subject: ADS-L: error report from VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU


The enclosed mail file, found in the ADS-L reader and shown under the spoolid

3720 in the console log, has been identified as a possible delivery error

notice for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field

pointing to the list has been found in mail body.

------------------ Message in error (67 lines) -------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 09:47:44 -0700


Subject: Re: Forrest Gump

David Johns observed Martin Sheen's difficulty in doing Gen. Lee's accent

for "Gettysburg," and the difficulty of getting accents right.

Mike Picone talked about the larger problems in the

motion picture industry.

I agree with David that maybe it's too much to expect for non[native

speakers to get it exactly right. But I do not think much of an effort

is made. I have a lot of respect for Martin Sheen as an actor and a

human being; I can't help thinking that he might have done better if the

director had made that a bigger part of the the role.

Which gets me to Mike's point. Yes, there is a lot of arrogance in the

movie/TV industries. And I suppose it ticks me off as a professional

linguist/dialectologist that a lot of what we know gets ignored by the

people who produce this stuff. And I supose part of being ticked off has

sg. to do with the failure of the culture at large to take what we know

about language variation very seriously. The press invariably reports on

any research in dialectology--even the appearance of a humongous project

like DARE--very humorously, with a lot of jokes. That's a bummer sometimes.

Tim Frazer

Hmmm -- Is it "the failure of the culture at large to take what we know

. . . very seriously" or is it rather our failure as professionals to

impress upon the culture at large that what we know is worthy of its

attention? Scholars from other fields --theologians, for example--

might make a similar comment. Somehow T. Frazer's comment ties up very

naturally with recent debates on topics such as mainstream vs. nonmainstream

linguistics and popularization. Assuming that the subjects of our study

and research are intrinsically important, the unanswered question is

how to convince the general public that this is the case. It cannot be

said that the profession has been particularly successful in doing this.

M. Azevedo