Can you explaint this sentence?
0
To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to “talk the talk,” not just “walk the walk.”
From this book: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis
Theory and method
discourse-markers
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
add a comment |
0
To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to “talk the talk,” not just “walk the walk.”
From this book: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis
Theory and method
discourse-markers
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
0
0
0
To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to “talk the talk,” not just “walk the walk.”
From this book: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis
Theory and method
discourse-markers
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to “talk the talk,” not just “walk the walk.”
From this book: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis
Theory and method
discourse-markers
discourse-markers
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
edited 1 hour ago
Barmar
9,7701529
9,7701529
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
asked 5 hours ago
Ehsan JahrootiEhsan Jahrooti
52
52
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487179%2fcan-you-explaint-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487179%2fcan-you-explaint-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
No, because that's the reverse of the common expression. Normally, we say that you can't just talk the talk, but that you also need to walk the walk. In other words, it's one thing to say that you can do something, it's another to actually demonstrate your proficiency at it. But given the title of the book, it may have been deliberately switched. (It's not enough to just talk, we need to talk about how and why we're talking.) I can't say outside of the context of the single sentence.
– Jason Bassford
5 hours ago
Can you please give a fuller context for this sentence. On the face of it, as Jason says, it looks looks to be the reverse of the familiar saying. But it might be that the writer (whose relevant text I cannot track down on Google) is doing this deliberately. This kind of reversal of what is expected is a common device. If it were that, then it would probably be around the controversial topic of 'identity appropriation'. It would have to mean something like : "Anybody can -PLAY AT being an X, but they can't necessarily show an understanding what is it to BE and X." But I guess.
– Tuffy
3 hours ago