One of the aspects of conversation that I find interesting is repair. This is the act of clearing up problems of communication (i.e. speaking, hearing, understanding) and in CA is usually defined in terms of who initiates the repair and who ultimately resolves the confusion. In the conversation from the handout about the shopping center, this can be seen in lines 15-17. In 15, person C mistakenly asks about a typewriter instead of a tape recorder. Before A can even finish the word, B has already recognized the possible confusion and works to repair it. In 16, B initiates the repair by correcting C. Ultimately, C follows B's advice and self-corrects, effectively completing the repair.
]]>This week we discussed the role of extralinguistic communication in creating an equal opportunity for members of a conversation to have the floor. We discussed several models for how silence in conversation is negotiated by the members of the group, including deferential nodding that maximizes the amount of communication even during silence and an aversion to silence that leads some to finish a speaker's sentence.
Personally, I can identify with the method of providing feedback in silences that let the speaker know I am listening. That is, when acting as a listener, I feel the need to fill in the silences left by the speaker with affirmations such as "uh huh" or "oh yeah?" This not only eliminates silences, but also reaffirms the status of the speaker has having the floor. I am communicating that I am listening and understanding the story, while still maintaining my deference of the floor to the speaker.
Do you think these methods are truly cultural? Or can anyone provide exceptions (i.e. americans who nod and smile)? What are your conversational styles?
Our discussion of conversational implicature and relevance theory/grice's maxims made me think of the common practice among parents or caregivers of spelling out a word in order to avoid stating it for fear of an adverse reaction from a child (or possibly pet). For example, here's a mock conversation between two parents:
A: "We should take the kids out for something fun"
B: "Ok, but lets not get i-c-e-c-r-e-a-m"
or between pet owners
A: "What's wrong with Fido?"
B: "I think he wants a t-r-e-a-t, but I already gave him 3 earlier."
In these examples, although B is flouting the maxim of manner by spelling out a word instead of pronouncing it, A is able to understand the meaning by assuming that the speaker is following the principles of relevance.
As you probably noticed while traversing campus this week, the genocide/pro-life activists set up some interesting displays near the walkway between chem-phys and Whitehall CB. The reason I bring this up is that they also set up a perimeter of warning signs that read something like "danger, graphic photos of genocide ahead".
Now, as we know, this usage of 'ahead' is an example of deixis of place. That is, upon reading the sign, one knows in which direction the pictures will be in relation to themselves and the sign. Interestingly, the activists failed to understand this concept, as the signs yesterday were all facing the pictures. For example, if you were to walk up from the king library towards the classroom building, you would see the backs of the signs. If you were to walk from CB towards the King library, you would be able to read the sign, but the pictures would be behind you, not in front of you.
Maybe this was an attempt at social commentary? or just a lack of observation? What do you think?
As discussed in chapter 17 and earlier in my blog, performativity is a quality of language that allows us to create and emphasize the reality of a statement's illocutionary force. For example, the phrase "I now pronounce you husband and wife" when spoken under the correct felicity conditions (i.e. by a priest, during a wedding, etc.) creates a reality in which the subjects are now husband and wife.
An interesting take on performativity comes from studies of how language shapes identity. Judith Butler, a feminist theorist and researcher on language's power over identity, explains that we use performativity in our everyday language to construct our own identities. We (subconsciously and through the guidelines of societal norms) display who we are and what kind of person we are through the way we speak, the topics we talk about, etc.
According to Butler, our desire to construct a socially identifiable gender identity is extremely powerful. So much so, that we begin to undergo this repetition of performative statements that place us on the gender spectrum. This leads to the idea of performance, which is differentiated from performativity in that it is a conscious decision to put forth an identity through predetermined utterances that index that identity.
A good example of locutionary and illocutionary forces in language can be seen when we order at a fast food restaurant. Specifically, the menu presents an example of how the same illocutionary act can be performed via different locutionary acts.
For example, here are two ways to order the same food at a fast food restaurant:
1. I would like a double cheeseburger, medium fries, and a sprite.
2. I would like a #2 with a sprite. (assuming #2 is the double cheeseburger, fries, and a coke deal)
That is, one is able to order each item separately or to take advantage of the pre-constructed combinations of sandwich, side, and drink.
As we all know, the ncaa tournament bracket challenge can be pretty daunting. Here is an interesting approach that takes its cues from our knowledge of prototypes and semantic categorization.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=mascots/080317
The idea is to pick the winning team based on the outcome of a clash between their respective mascot/team names. For example, in the case of UNLV vs Kent State, this columnist states:
"UNLV over Kent State. The Golden Flashes (or eagles or whatever) would
get the Indiana Jones treatment from the Rebels -- and by that we mean
shot."
When we compare these two teams based on which would win in a fight, we are really comparing the prototype features eagles and rebels. The prototypical eagle would be much smaller than a human, and the prototypical rebel would be large compared to an eagle and as a soldier, would need to have a weapon.
Another would-be animal bracketologist suggests a complicated hierarchy:
http://wherearemykeys.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/19/more_help_in_filling_out_your_march_madness_brackets.thtml
One problem with this method (besides the obvious lack of attention to the quality of team involved) arises when we try to categorize these mascots in order to determine which type of mascot would beat the other. I believe that difficult selections such as the Stanford Cardinal vs the Cornell Big Red constitute possible lexical gaps. That is, the Big Red don't really fit into any typical category of mascot (i.e. cat, soldier, etc).
Another one of these conundrums is the drake bulldogs vs the western ky hilltoppers (the mascot here sort of resembles an anthropomorphic, red gumdrop)
March Madness is here, and what better way to enjoy the tournament than some linguistic analysis? Yesterday while I was watching Stanford play, one of the commentators treated the viewer to some pragmatic gold. In reference to one of the 7-foot Lopez twins having rejected a shot attempt, the announcer exclaimed, "Look out! Tokyo is under attack!"
Here the announcer is taking advantage of our pragmatic ability to identify cultural references. In this case, he emphasizes the towering height of Lopez by referencing Godzilla. Using our sociolinguistic competence, we are able to understand to whom the statement referred without it containing any person deixis.
I suppose this also ties in with something we have discussed in many linguistics courses and I think is coming soon in our discussion of pragmatics: Grice's conversational maxims. I won't ruin the excitement of detailing each one for Dr. Myers, but the basic idea is that there are certain restraints on how information should be conveyed that are imposed by the speaker's necessity to be understood. These include relevance, quality of information, etc., and explain our ability to interpret the declaration "Tokyo is under attack". As hearers, we assume that a speaker's utterances will conform to these principles of conversation. We know that the announcer must be referring to the action we just took place, and thus we are able to ignore the truth inherent in the utterance and then apply it metaphorically to the game.
Ok, I didnt answer all of them, but I did do most of them. Feel free to disagree/propose other possibilities.
1. CAR *level 3* (taxonomical):
Basic level categories *level 2*: Car, Truck, SUV
Car sub-categories *level 1*: compact, subcompact, coupe, 2-door, 4-door, convertible, hatchback, station wagon?, to name a few
Truck sub-categories *1*: Pickup, Semi/tractor trailer/18-wheeler/etc., tow truck, mail/delivery(UPS,DHL) truck, fire truck, ambulance?, to name a few
SUV *1*: Jeep, Compact SUV/Mini SUV, camper/motorhome, 4WD, 4x4, etc.
**some terms don’t seem to fit nicely into a category such as station wagon, minivan, ambulance, and what about those “sport utility trucks” that can be a pickup or an SUV?
***possible lexical gap: I had to use car as a basic level category of car…
2. Levels of a hierarchy: see 10.2.1.1 (pg 176-7) Also see my hierarchy above, I labeled them.
3. agent (?), instrument, theme, patient, theme
4. Possible ambiguity: multiple meanings of ‘club’ (weapon, group of people, sandwich, place to dance). On the other hand, ‘ate’ selects sandwich as the only possible meaning. Therefore I would say this is not ambiguous.
5. Modality- Epistemic (possibility/necessity) vs Deontic (“the way it should be”). The example sentence represents epistemic modality (possibility).
6.a. heterogeneous, telic, punctual, semelfactive, perfective, iterative
7. a) entailment- my daughter has red hair requires that I have a daughter
b) contrariety- Kim could be married, but her husband is not very nice
c) independence- truth-values are unrelated
d) contradiction- one must be true
e) contrariety- this seems like it could be relative. If you just came in from outside in the sun it would probably be dark in the room, even if the lights were on. If you just woke up and walked into the room with all the lights on, it would be bright in the room.
8. miniscule, tiny, small, large, huge, gigantic
10. taxonomy is a type of hyponymic relationship in which the pair suits the pattern A X is a Y but not A X is a type/kind/sort of Y. Here is a possible analysis:
Taxonyms are a type of hyponyms, thus ‘taxonym’ is a hyponym of ‘hyponym’ and ‘hyponym’ is a superordinate of ‘taxonym’.
11. relative, negational, Boolean, Boolean
12. I assume a & b refer to making oatmeal on the stove rather than in the microwave. In that case, a)yes b)no (what if I boil oatmeal for a few seconds and then turn off the heat before its done cooking?) c)yes d)yes
13. pg 45
14. hyponymy defines the relationship between two words where one represents a type of the other (apple:fruit). Meronymy defines the relationship between part and whole (hand:finger)
15. I have completed/am currently completing all of the requirements set forth by the university in order to receive a degree.
16. spring mattress-1(prototype), futon-4, air mattress-3, couch-5, recliner-6, cot-3
17. These represent different facets of the word ‘text’. The first usage refers to the actual characters or script, while the second two refer to the content or meaning of the work as a whole
18. I’m not sure what the author of this question had in mind, but maybe he or she was referring to the idea of perspective? In that sense, we use the idea of ‘folk taxonomy’ which relies on perceptual features (i.e. taste, size?, shape?) to note that these are all kinds of fruits.