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.