Vocables

We have talked about presenting oneself in different ways depending on which language one is using. Here is an interesting variation:

In my world music class we talked about the use of vocables in some Native American music, which are basically just sounds that don't have meaning like words do. At powwows, many different tribes gather together and sing songs that use vocables instead of words because the different tribes do not share a common language. In this sense, the vocables are used to unite the tribes at one event.

I just thought this was noteworthy because it shows a sort-of-linguistic view of expression and unity (only without actual words...)

Some questions/thoughts

Why does writer's block happen?

What are the various factors that allow us to remember some things much more easily than others? (Ex, why do we tend to use certain words more frequently than other synonyms?)

Do babies understand what their first word means?

How did words without a real definition originate? Ex: the, a, an, there

How come some words for meat are the same as the animal, but others aren't? For example, why is the meat from a chicken called "chicken" and the meat from a fish called "fish," but meat from a cow is "beef" and meat from a pig is "pork?"

Why we have to go and make things so complicated?

A coworker brought in a picture of her young grandchildren surrounded by toys in the living room. As she showed me the photo, she pointed to one of the toys and said "What do you think that is?" I said, "It looks like some kind of Frisbee."

"That's what everyone has been saying," she said.

After I suggested that it was a Frisbee, she told me that when she had asked her granddaughter what it was, she simply said "An orange circle."


This story shows how two people can look at the same thing, but think about it differently based on one's past experiences and acquired vocabularies. I just thought this was interesting because it shows that sometimes larger vocabularies lead us to complicate or overlook a very simple description for a simple item.

Back to technology

Today my friend showed me his new phone. By doing this, he gave me another example of developing communication technologies. We touched upon this certain technology in class but only with the notion that it hasn't really taken off yet. We might be wrong soon...

...because...

...my friend's phone has voice-recognition abilities. He can speak to the phone: "call Stephanie," and it will proceed to call me without my friend ever having to touch a button.

Maybe a lot of phones can do this but I've never seen it before, so I thought this would be an interesting occurrence to point out.

Maybe this is one step closer to Kurzweil's prediction that much of future communication will be human-to-machine (not quite there yet, since telling the phone to call me is just a step before actually talking to me, a non-machine)




* A special thanks to Dan for making this post possible

Songs

I'll admit I had some trouble with the song/emotion assignment. I was thinking of songs that make me feel a certain way, but I wasn't sure how to explain why those songs brought up those emotions. This is because I don't often pay attention to lyrics...a lot of the time it's how the song sounds that elicits emotion for me. Since I knew people in class would be listening to lyrics, my explanations might not have made any sense and it would have been weird.

For example, I heard a song that reminded me of my boyfriend just because of how it sounded (well it makes sense to me). One day in the car I started playing the song and told him that it made me think of him. So we started listening to the song intently, and this was the first time I actually paid attention to the lyrics, which as it turned out included lines such as "I don't really like you" and "On the cold wet dirt I cry." Oops.

Fortunately, he knows that I don't tend to listen to song lyrics and thought this was really funny.

So, I guess the moral of this story is that if you ignore the "language" part of "language and self," you pave the way for some potential misunderstanding. "Language" and "self" truly go together, and genuine self-expression is not complete without a full recognition of both elements.

Citation for my last post...

Wadman, Ruth, Kevin Durkin, and Gina Conti-Ramsden. 2008. Self-esteem, shyness, and sociability in adolescents with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51: 938-952.

Language and Self-Esteem

For today (Monday), I read an article about how Specific Language Impairment (SLI) can effect individuals' self-esteem. I thought this was an important topic to investigate while we were on the section about Language and Self, because it's a reminder about how the ability to effectively express ourselves impacts how we really perceive ourselves.

The authors used the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale to assess self-esteem ratings of 16-17 year-olds with SLI and compared their results to those of their peers with typical language ability. They found that "the SLI participants had lower self-esteem than peers but these scores were within the expected range (ie, not abnormally low)" (947).

It was important to note that there is no clear arrow of causality in this study. The authors suggest that SLI is a good predictor of shyness, which in turn leads to lower self-esteem. The SLI participants showed high levels of sociability, but tended to exhibit shyness nonetheless. This highlights a notion that Goffman touched upon, that the way others perceive an individual is important in influencing how the individual perceives him or herself.

The authors state that "Having positive regard for the self is favorable for general well-being and may protect adolescents with SLI from long-term negative outcomes, such as mental health problems and loneliness" (949). I thought this was a significant article overall because it emphasizes the importance of langauage in relation to self-image.

Poetry

With this most recent set of readings, we're finally seeing more examples of the poetic function of language through cross-cultural examples. Abu-Lughod indicates that poetry is the acceptable means of expression emotion (especially love); to talk about emotions or feelings in any other way would be unacceptable. For example, she tells the story of a woman who would not discuss any feelings about her divorce. However, she started reciting a poem that was obviously about her sadness at losing her husband. Abu-Lughod emphasizes that in this example, the woman "expressed the sentiments of love in poetry - but she denied those sentiments in her ordinary conversation" (31).

In another example, Urban highlights the poetic function of ritual wailing in South America. This type of wailing is a way to express emotion, but it is poetic in that it is not the same as expressing emotion in ordinary conversation. Interestingly, Urban states that "It is intended not to be heard, in the ordinary linguistic sense, but rather to be overheard" (160). This is in a sense allowing people to catch a glimpse of emotions that should not be expressed in any other way.

It's interesting to think about these two examples in comparison with our own cultural situation. In the US, we have unspoken guidelines about where and when and how it is appropriate (or not) to express certain emotions or other aspects of our personal selves. However, we have the freedom to follow or ignore these guidelines as we choose (ie, "The Decline and Fall of the Private Self").

Performing...?

Not to get all metalinguistic on you, but...

Are these blogs (or any writing, for that matter) considered performances? Today we saw how it can be difficult to determine what is or is not a performance, and I can't decide whether writing is or not.

In a way, I think writing can be considered a performance because it's generally intended for an audience. Also, the writer shapes his or her thoughts in a way that would be the most appealing for a particular audience (you might write in one style for one audience but in another style for a different audience).

But maybe one could argue that writing is not a performance because the act of writing itself is not intended for anyone to see and is not really open to much interpretation. When I see someone in the act of writing, the extent of my thoughts is usually "there's someone writing;" there is not much to analyze.

Or, maybe writing is just a form of evidence of the performance that lies behind it.

Google Flu Trends

My friend showed me a very interesting article from Wednesday's New York Times that relates to our discussion of communication technology and its many possibilities...

Basically, Google thinks that "it may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Why?

An increasing number of Americans search for topics such as Flu Symptoms when they suspect they might be coming down with something. Since Google can track searches and their frequency, it is developing "a new early warning system for fast-spreading flu outbreaks, called Google Flu Trends."

Through comparisons with CDC report dates and dates of increased flu-related Google searches, Google has recognized that people are turning to the search engine before they contact their doctors, and plan to use this data to provide information such as where an outbreak may occur in the US.

Just another example of the many possibilities for large-scale, technologically based communication!

Helft, Miguel. 2008. Aches, a Sneeze, a Google search. The New York Times: 12 November 2008, page A1 and A23.

Self-monitoring

This post relates to number 11 on our question sheet.

11. How do people decide which self, or which aspect of themselves, to depict on such media as Facebook, Second Life, or games? What considerations do they make? How does that differ from face-to-face, physical portrayals?

Toward the beginning of the semester, we spent a little bit of time discussing this kind of question in my management class in relation to how people portray themselves to different people in the workplace and how online depictions can affect "real people's" perceptions of an individual. The ability to portray yourself in different ways to different people is called self-monitoring, and people who are especially good at depicting very different sides of themselves in different situations would be referred to as high self-monitors (as opposed to always showing the same personality traits no matter the situation).

For example, a student might act and speak one way around friends on a weekend, but then use a different style of language and demeanor in an advising meeting with a professor because different people have different expectations for an individual. Situation and context have a lot to do with varying expressions of self as well (eg, being with a group of old friends vs. being on a first date).

This same concept can be applied to online media portrayals of self. Someone might decide to create two online profiles. One could be a professional profile that includes a serious photo, work experience, and information strictly pertaining to one aspect of the person's life (probably work). The other could be something like a Facebook page, which would include more personal information and which the person would share with friends and family but probably not with boss and coworkers (although this isn't always the case).

An interesting point was raised during the self-monitor discussion that day: is it unethical to have two different Facebook accounts that depict yourself in totally different ways? Would a person be lying if he or she only allowed boss/coworkers access to the more polished, professional page that excludes other aspects of his/her personality?

Log Blog

Like everyone in the class, the day I decided to keep a log on my use of communication technologies was not a typical day. I watched more TV than usual and I emailed and texted less than I usually do. Here is the breakdown:

- 3 total text messages
- 36 Min phone
- 15 min email
- 60 min TV (multitask)
- 17 min IM (multitask)
- 16 min FBook
- 229 min Surfing (mostly for work)
- 3 min "Other" - this was mostly using the digital screen at the gas pump...does that count?

I found that most of my technological interactions were referential in function, but a couple were phatic (IM, phone call). Also, since I watched TV, I engaged the "new function" we discussed the other day. This is a kind of passive, one-sided connection that is more for consumption than communication. If we put TV in that category, should we put written text in that category as well?

omg

Hey everyone, I didn't want to give this away too early but I found one of the most interesting articles I've ever seen and I just can't help but reveal some of it. I was going to talk about it in class and use it in my project so I'll try not to spoil too much...

You know how people sometimes say "brb" or "btw" out loud? An article by Allen Walker Read gives a TON of accounts of things like this that happened in the 1800s. Just as is happening today, some "experts" were worried that speaking and writing in ridiculous acronyms (even in newspapers and other published documents) was going to be detrimental to the English language. Well, apparently it was mostly just a "craze" and the abbreviations went by the wayside, except for the currently-popular "OK." (OK was an abbreviation of a purposefully/playfully misspelled "all correct" - "oll korrect").

Here are some other 1800's examples according to this author's research:

OFM was very common, standing for "our first men," which was "used in a semisatirical sense:"

- All o.f.m. should make frequent pilgrimages to the o.b.s. during this hot weather. (OBS was the Old Boston Stone - which sold ice cream).


NG:
- They then went together to the plaintiff's to try to settle, but it was n.g. (no go).

SP = small potatoes
GT = gone to Texas

This one required a subsequent printed explanation by the editor: G.t.d.h.d. Supposedly it should have been clear to readers that this stood for "Give the devil his due."

And my personal favorite from the article:

NS = Nuff said. (From the 1800s!!)


So, since most of these widely-used abbreviations eventually died out, maybe using txt language now will not be an everlasting trend for English. But who knows...maybe lol will be the next ok?

Technological Predictions

Tomorrow in class I plan to talk about Ray Kurzweil, a computer scientist who has played a large role in the invention of communication technologies such as a reading machine for the blind. James Katz mentioned Kurzweil in "Future Communication Technology and Social Settings." Kurzweil is confident that technological advances for communication and other aspects of life will affect us sooner than we may think. In 1999, he made predictions for the status of certain technologies for future decades. Now that we are quickly approaching the end of 2008, I thought it would be interesting to review some of his predictions for 2009. Some of them are fairly accurate, but others still have not taken off. Here are some samples:

"Individuals primarily use portable computers, which have become dramatically lighter and thinner than the notebook computers of 10 years earlier. Portable computers are available in a wide range of sizes and shapes and are commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry such as wristwatches, rings, earrings, and other body ornaments."

"People typically have at least a dozen computers on and around their bodies, which are networked using "body LANs (local area networks). These computers provide communication facilities similar to cellular phones, pagers, and Web surfers..."

"Cables are disappearing. Communication between components, such as pointing devices, microphones, displays, printers, and the occasional keyboard, uses short-distance wireless technology."

"The majority of text is created using continuous speech recognition (CSR) dictation software, but keyboards are still used. CSR is very accurate, far more so than the human transcriptionists who were used until a few years ago."

"Translating telephone technology (where you speak in English and your Japanese friend hears you in Japanese, and vice versa) is commonly used for many language pairs. It is a routine capability of an individual's personal computer, which also serves as a phone."

"Learning materials are accessed through wireless communication."

Kurzweil also made some predictions for 2019, 2029, and 2099 in this article, which I will highlight in class if there is time. Here is the citation if you are interested in reading the rest of his ideas. I found the article through a library search.

Kurzweil, Ray. 1999. Spiritual Machines: The Merging of Man and Machine. The Futurist: November: 16-21.

I would also recommend his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" if you need ideas for a good Christmas-break read.

Also search Kurzweil on the internet - very fascinating inventions and ideas!

What do u think technology mite b doing 2 our language? lol

My main impression of Baron's argument is that she does not think that technology such as email, IM, and text messaging has a significantly negative impact on more formal writing skills. If anything is causing a decline in the quality of Americans' writing, it is "the sheer amount of text that literate Americans produce" these days (p 7). For now, I tend to agree with Baron that while technology may lead to some changes in the English language, it probably will not have a major negative impact on writing and language skills. For example, abbreviations such as b4 and U will probably remain unacceptable in formal writing. Even though friends might say things such as "brb" out loud to each other, people probably will always understand that it is not appropriate to say them in a business meeting.

If anything, I think that being able to differentiate between very informal language (texting, IM) and more "normal" language could help people to strengthen their language skills in general. Being able to adapt to different social situations is an important skill, and language plays a large role in this. Developing flexibility of language use and learning what is appropriate for different situations may help us to expand our repertoire of language practices. However, this could heavily depend on the strength of one's language education during elementary-high school, in order to avoid the "whatever" attitude Baron alludes to when someone's grammar mistake is corrected.

While I don't think that texting and IM/email are ruining our language, I do think that such technology will contribute to a shift in overall style. In particular, I think that elements of writing (sentences, paragraphs, overall pieces of writing) will become shorter as we become more accustomed to producing many small messages in a short amount of time. Technology might play a role in this shift to shorter/simpler writing, but I do not think it is the sole factor because American writing in general has undergone similar changes over time up to this point anyway.

The primary negative effect of communication technologies (Baron also discusses this) would probably be its effect on social relationships. IM, texting, and email provide ways to keep in touch with many people, but only on a superficial level with no face-to-face interaction. This does not reflect a change in language itself, but it might become increasingly important to think about as our number of "strong ties" decreases (as Baron mentions).

Another thought

On pg 132, Baron says "I have yet to hear of Americans using their mobiles for beeping as a thrift measure." (Beeping is calling someone, letting the phone ring once, and hanging up in order to avoid using minutes or paying extra). I have done this before - not because I was out of minutes, but because my friend was out of minutes and texts. I was planning to meet him at his dorm on a football weekend, so he had to let me into the building. He told me ahead of time to call him and hang up right away so that he would know I was there (at this point ND had stopped providing landlines in rooms).

My proj

I am planning to study Notre Dame students' use of abbreviations in everyday speech (spoken or online). Here are the main divisions so far:

Standard/ND-wide abbreviations: campus buildings (LaFun), concepts relating to ND (The Observ)

More obscure abbreviations used by fewer people (but are still somewhat easily understood by others, although sometimes only in context) - Pizza can be either piz' (peets) or 'za

Failed abbreviations - sometimes people come up with a new one and expect others to understand, but they just don't: FAC

I am going to take note of abbreviations that I observe in people's speech, and I will administer a survey asking participants to list some of their fave abbrevs and provide background/reasons for using those particular abbreviations.

iPod

I saw a new iPod commercial this weekend that boasted "The funnest iPod ever." This reminded me of Luntz because he indicates that sometimes it's ok to sacrifice good grammar for the sake of sound and texture (which help make the advertisement more memorable).

Other examples of this that Luntz points out include Bounty paper towels: "The quicker picker upper" and "Think Different," which is actually another Mac slogan.

Just thought this was interesting and thought I would mention it while we were on the topic of persuasive language!

Analysis of an Indian Editorial

Using the dimensions presented by Fairclough, I'm going to attempt to analyze an editorial from The Times of India. The editorial is entitled "One for Ramadoss" and can be found here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/One_for_Ramadoss/articleshow/3563692.cms


Basically, Health Minister Anbumari Ramadoss argues for decriminalizing homosexuality in India, and the author of this editoral supports Ramadoss' position.

According to Fairclough, this article is considered a text in written/visual form (as opposed to spoken text).

Fairclough's dimension of representation is divided into what the text includes and what it excludes. In this example, one element that is included is a description of the worst form of punishment for homosexuality in India: 10 years in prison. On the other hand, the text excludes descriptions of other, perhaps more "typical" punishments and information regarding exactly how one incurs the different punishments.

Another element that Fairclough outlines is presupposition. This article may presuppose that no one else has expressed this opinion before, at least not publicly. Any other supporters of decriminalizing homosexuality are backgrounded while the opinion of this public figure is foregrounded. There is no indication that Ramadoss built his opinion from the statements of others.

The dimension of events and actions is illustrated in this article as well. The text is primarily active and the author personifies concepts such as "state" as the actor. For example, "The state should no longer concern itself with what consenting adults choose to do in private" and "The Delhi high court is examining a public interest litigation on the subject."

Along the same lines, the author also uses nominalizations. Again, concepts such as "state," "society," and "home ministry" become concrete.

Fairclough also discusses the use of summaries, formulation, quotations, and reactions. This editorial is based on a summary of both the current policy and Ramadoss' statements opposing it.

However, this text could also be viewed as focusing on Ramadoss' reaction to the policy of Section 377. OR it could even be viewed as the author's reaction to Ramadoss' reaction.

These are the primary elements that I was able to extract from this editorial (hopefully I used the elements correctly). I also noticed a couple of things that Orwell or Luntz would point out, but I will save those for another time since I wanted to focus on Fairclough for this discussion.

A little on the VP debate

I'm looking forward to class discussion regarding tonight's VP debate (Oct 2). For now, here are a few political-speech elements that I noticed.

Senator Biden used a couple of terms that have shown up in some of our readings. For example,
he used the word "fairness" a couple of times in explaining/definding his positions regarding taxes and healthcare. Luntz mentions that "'fairness' has always been a core component of the Democratic lexicon" and that "When you hear the word spoken, you know the party affiliation of the speaker" (207). Perhaps it was this paragraph that made me more attentive to Biden's use of this word.

Biden also used the phrase "ultimate bridge to nowhere," which Orwell might critique as an overused or unnecessary metaphor.

One of my housemates was bothered by the fact that Biden frequently referred to himself in the third person. I don't recall this element in any of our readings, but it made me wonder why he did this. Is there any persuasive/political element to the use of the third person in this sense?


A couple of unclear metaphors appeared on Gov. Palin's side, such as the use of the term "barometer" and "toxic mess on Wall Street."

She also frequently used the phrase "tax relief," which George Lakoff noted was a common conservative/Republican phrase. Having read Lakoff, I was more in tune to the use of this term just as I was for the use of "fairness" on the Democratic side.

I think Orwell would also criticize Palin for using phrases that she did not fully understand...actually, she used several paradoxical phrases that simply did not make sense:

"Clean, green natural gas"
"Environmentally friendly drilling"

And my personal favorite -
"Team of mavericks"

The word "maverick" has been thrown around so much lately that it is becoming ambiguous (Orwell would not approve). This is exemplified in Palin's phrase "team of mavericks"...a TEAM of mavericks does not make sense because "maverick" is defined as "an independent individual who does not go along with a group"!

Looking forward to what everyone has to say on this debate

Just some comments

Here are just a couple of things that stood out to me from today's readings (they're kind of all disconnected, but I guess that's ok because Luntz says that "Americans are easily bored" and that we should try to keep "offering something new")

In his Appendix, Orwell explains that in Newspeak, any word can become a verb, noun, adjective, or adverb. Now that it's 2008, there's something to be said for this prediction. People verb words quite often now (like that). Sometimes people do it just to be funny, but some legitimate verbs are words that are normally considered nouns (let's table this discussion for now, the chef just plated the salmon).

Regarding Orwell's discussion about Newspeak plurals all following the same rules (add -s or -es to every noun), I think some of our current words have already started following that pattern. Now, it is acceptable to say indexes instead of indices and appendixes instead of appendices.

Luntz is in dialogue with Orwell in his first and second rules, which are to use small words and short sentences. From political speeches to persuasive advertising, sticking to the rules of shortness can influence voter response and sales.

Luntz's rule number 3 is about the importance of credibility. I find it interesting that he mentions the M&Ms slogan throughout the chapter (Melts in your mouth, not in your hand), but does not mention why that slogan is no longer in use. My guess is because it was not credible...so many M&Ms have melted in my hands over the years! I had hoped Luntz would bring that up as one of his examples of why credibility is important for a slogan's success.

Context is a recurring theme in our analysis of language; Luntz stresses it yet again for persuasive types of speech and language.

--------------------------------------------------------------

News flash:

The TV is on at our house right now, as I type this post. A Vehix commercial just came on and said something about "Power Circle ratings." My roomate said something along the lines of "what does that even mean?" and it prompted me to mention it here. It's an example of one of those "ambiguous" phrases that are sometimes used in persuasive speech. I don't really know what it means, but it sounds official and important so I should probably be interested in the product.

This discussion in turn reminded us of the new shampoo/skin care commercials that emphasize how their product fights "free radicals." What? This term is framed so that it makes us think there's something "bad" that we really need to be fighting...so we'll be more likely to buy a product that promises to help us in our fight.

Reading and talking about persuasive discourse has made me more alert of framing and unusual terms when such advertisements appear. I've noticed I've been consciously analyzing them more, so I had to mention these two commercials to end this post!

Speech by Khrushchev

On June 15, 1961, the Soviet radio and TV broadcast the speech of The Chairman of The Council of Ministers of the USSR Nikita Sergeevitch Khrushchev. In conclusion, speaking about his meetings and talks with the President of The United States of America John Kennedy, in Vienna, Nikita Sergeevitch Khrushchev said:

"I would like to point out that in general I am satisfied with these talks. If you asked me, 'Was it worth arranging the meeting, was it worth having it?' I would say without hesitation 'It was worth having it, and we needed to have it.' In our talks with the President of the USA neither of the parties avoided raising and discussing the most urgent issues. It could be said that we had had a very open conversation. We have studied attentively the position of the USA government and have stated in detail the position of the Soviet government concerning some major international issues. This fact itself is of paramount importance. Nobody, of course, expected us to reach complete agreement _ the courses our countries are pursuing are too different to expect this happen. I am under the impression that President Kennedy is aware of the great responsibility that is resting with the governments of such powerful states as ours. Hopefully the awareness of this responsibility will not fade away in the future, so that we would be able to solve the new international problems that will arise, and clear the stones from the road that block our way to stable peace and better relations between the Soviet Union and the USA. Our relations at the moment leave much to be desired, and the Soviet Union is not to blame for such a situation. But we would like to believe that time will come when Soviet-American relations improve and this will have a positive impact on the international situation at large."


I noticed that this speech could be much more concise if it followed Orwell's advice. For example, in the first sentence the phrase "I would like to point out that in general" does not seem necessary; the same effect could be achieved by omitting this phrase entirely. Other phrases could be deleted or shortened as well, such as "It could be said that," "Our relations at the moment leave much to be desired," and "I am under the impression that." According to the category "Operators or Verbal False Limbs," Orwell does not like the elimination of simple verbs; he would prefer a more precise wording.

Something else Orwell might notice is the use of this metaphor: "clear the stones from the road that block our way to stable peace." Orwell thinks that such metaphors are worn-out and "have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves" (Orwell - online).

Orwell might also consider words such as "attentively" and "paramount" unnecessary.

Source: Nikita Khrushchev's remarks upon meeting President John F. Kennedy (excerpt)
http://www.hpol.org/transcript.php?id=64

Word art

Here is something interesting I remember from a book of optical illusions. If I remember right, the caption was "Is this man honest? It's written all over his face."

See it?

Does this count as verbal art?

I'm not sure, since it does not seem to use any of the factors and functions we've been discussing. Maybe this should be classified as "word art," because the effect is more visual than linguistic.

That's not to say that the word in this image is meaningless. The fact that the word and the image of a face share the same lines reflects the relevance of the two elements. If the word "liar" formed the shape of a dandilion or a lamp, the effect of the word would be lost because it is not relevant for inanimate objects. In this way, the "word art" in this image might be related to the other forms of verbal art we've examined.

The "Accidental" Pun

In class we have mentioned puns and manipulation of language, but so far our emphasis has been on intentional manipulation and performances. One section of Sherzer's book that I particularly enjoyed focuses on unintentional puns as a form of speech play. Sherzer states that "At times an unconscious, unnoticed pun becomes noticed, either by the speaker or by a listener. Thus, by convention, it changes the nature of the discourse, which now focuses on the pun as if it were intended" (33). Sherzer's example comes from a lecturer whose statement was intended to be serious, but the audience was able to turn the statement into a pun:

Some things only happen to women. Period.

This section caught my attention because unintended puns happen so frequently in everyday conversation (they keep things interesting). But of course, as I sit here trying to think of recent examples I just cannot remember many. If you have come across any unintentional puns lately, feel free to post them!

The only one that readily comes to mind happened when my sister and I were much younger. We were playing in the backyard near the plastic kiddie pool and my sister dropped her towel into the pool. She grabbed it back out, held it up to look at it, and said "Oh no!! Oh...oh well...accidents happen," while at the same time the soaking towel dripped down her leg, making look like an "accident" really did happen. As soon as she realized the double meaning of what she said, we both laughed for days about it (as little kids we thought this was hilarious).

Here is my question about accidental puns: since the speaker did not intend to use a pun, does the pun count as a verbal performance? It seems that an intended pun could be considered a performance because of the intent behind it, but I am not sure whether intention can help determine whether a speech act can be labeled as a "performance" or not. Maybe the accidental pun is not itself a performance, but becomes one as soon as the addressee(s) realize the double meaning of the words? Let me know your thoughts!

"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect"

It might be hard to imagine that standing slouched onstage and speaking in a monotone for an extended period of time could be perceived as a verbal performance, but comedian Stephen Wright manages to keep his audience laughing by using these techniques.

The monotone does not grow old because Stephen Wright counters it by using many short, one-line quips rather than telling a long story. The one-liners do not follow one another, providing an element of surprise and thus holding the interest of the audience.

Bauman describes "joking" as a frame "in which the words spoken are to be interpreted as not seriously meaning what they might otherwise mean" (168). Despite his serious tone, Stephen Wright often says things that are not meant to be interpreted seriously. For example, onstage he stated (in a low, slow monotone), "I'm feeling kinda hyper" which was met with laughter from the audience.

He also jokes by referring to impossibilities (infelicitous statements):

I'm living on a one-way, dead-end street.

I've been making wine at home, but I make it out of raisins so it'll be aged automatically.

I went to the hardware store and bought some used paint. It was in the shape of a house.


Wright also tells jokes with the assumption that the audience takes certain things for granted:

Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it 'cause of that song?

I went to a museum that has all the heads and arms from the statues in other museums.


Of course, it is not the same to read these quotes as it is to listen to AND watch Stephen Wright say them himself. As we discussed in class, the context of a speech act is very important for how messages are interpreted, and Wright's monotone and mannerisms add substantially to his comedy.

Stephen Wright Standup Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HYUyhujl4&feature=related

Factors and Functions

I think I understand the gist of Jakobson's and Hymes' articles, I thought they were pretty abstract and I've had a hard time envisioning a speech event to which one can apply all 6 (or 7) of the Factors and Functions these authors have outlined.

Here is an example where I can apply some (hopefully I'm on the right track):

Someone in a traffic jam is experiencing road rage and yells orders to the cars in front of him. This addresser uses the expressive/emotive function to indicate his feelings about the situation, and the directive/conative function is also present because he directs imperatives toward the receivers/addressees (even though the addressees do not realize they are involved in this speech act).

If the driver says something like "come on!" or "let's go!" he is using a code (metalinguistic function) to express his wish for all the other drivers to drive faster and give him more room on the road.

The driver does not have to worry about actually upsetting anyone with his yelling because the setting is inside his own vehicle where no one can hear him. The corresponding function to this setting is context, which is one-sided in this situation because no other drivers can hear him. Therefore they don't need to understand a context to interpret the driver's words.

Some other elements I am missing include phatic (contact) function, poetic function, referential function, form of message factor, channel factor, and topic (combining Hymes and Jakobson). I was not sure how to apply all of these, nor was I sure if it was necessary to use all of them.

Don't shoot the messenger... or maybe...

I read Duranti's "Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context," and I was kind of surprised by his number 4 example (page 20). He provides an example in which "The orator is...reprimanded for having said something that was at a later point contradicted by the chief Savea" (21).

How can it be the orator's fault if a situation changes later?

Maybe this rule simply tries to minimize hasty statements and encourage speakers to carefully think through the possible effects of what they are about to say.

Even so, what does "get reprimanded" mean? Are there potentially severe consequences when the situation changes after the speaker speaks?

Also, unlike our common saying "don't shoot the messenger," Duranti notes that "an orator can be held responsible for having announced something on behalf of a higher ranking matai" and that "The orator's own understanding of the events or his personal motivations may well be irrelevant" (16). This example provides an interesting comparative context between the American perspective on the messenger's situation and Samoan perspective.

My first blog entry ever

This entry is kind of a test-run, because I am new to "blogging" and I'm figuring out the ropes. I hope you enjoy my reflections and comments, and feel free to comment on my posts as well!

Well, to start off my new blog series, one aspect of the readings that I found most intriguing was Austin's discussion of "infelicity" and nonsense statements in "Performative Utterances." A great example of this concept is to say, "I promise that I shall be there, but I haven't the least intention of being there" (235). This sentence reminded me of a poem I used to know (I couldn't remember the whole thing, so I searched it on Google and here is the version I found):

One bright day in the middle of the night
Two dead men stood up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
A blind man there to see fair play
And two big dummies to shout hurray
A legless donkey passing by
Kicked the blind man in the eye
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and arrested the two dead boys

I thought this poem was another good (and humorous) example of infelicity. The poem flows well and otherwise follows a storyline, but each individual line does not make sense! I have always found such outrageous/nonsense statements and stories interesting, so it was great to read Austin's discussion on infelicitous statements.

"The cat is on the mat and I don't believe it is,"

Stephanie