I have read every word of the Chaika essay I guess I never really realized how many intricacies are in our daily language; especially information prompts (Questions and manipulations.) The amazing thing is how language can shape the style of conversation or relationship you have with another person. Whether consciously or not, we can shape the outcome of social situations from the kind of words or commands we decide to give on another. Reading this article made me think of the ways in which people can subtly use language to manipulate people’s thoughts or beliefs such as use of propaganda. It can have both positive and negative effects on people or societies as a whole, and for the most part people seem not to notice. Another interesting concept to me is where did the etiquette for exchanges come from? For example when answering the telephone the person who takes the call is the first to answer. When did this become a standard rule of telephone etiquette? Obviously there is no universal rule or it wouldn’t differ from country to country (England and France for example.) I was really interested on the origin of such rules for the types of functions discussed in the essay.
Chaika's examination of speech acts and the nature of conversation was rather interesting, to say the least. I understood the basic ideas presented in her excerpt, and found her ideas about language's power to be fascinating! I really enjoyed her breakdown of Sacks' utterance pairs, as it was very helpful in understanding her main ideas. The manipulative power of language was something I've been considering for a long time, having watched speeches and other forms of rhetoric and communication that held a great effect on the people who listened to them. The idea that effective discourse elicits response makes good sense, and now I am affirmed in my thoughts. This reminds me of the excerpt we read a few weeks ago about disguised speech, and how our interactions can bring forward different understandings in different contexts. This excerpt further discussed that idea, explaining that language can be understood, but it's meaning can be misconstrued if an individual only understands the words being spoken. Without a knowledge of the context in which language is being used, one may never come to a full understanding of the meaning of a phrase.
I feel like this happens to me a lot, particularly while reading text messages. Because of the nature of a text, I have trouble understanding the meaning or mood of the message, without clear guidance. The messages elicit a response, but without understanding the context of the message, I REALLY struggle to understand and respond effectively. Hopefully my new understanding of discourse routines and the script of a conversation will help!
I found the opening of Chaika's essay interesting, especially when she noted that "relative social statuses, privileges and duties of the speaker and listener" come into account when considering what meaning a particular group of words evoke. I liked the example of the school auditorium lacking the proper amount of chairs. I think that this is a common linguistic feature that gets overlooked. It is not something that I think about on a day to day basis, but it is something that is a part of my everyday life. Maybe this accounts for the gap in meaning or empathy when one person is extremely excited about a particular event, but when the information is conveyed to the next person the same excitement doesn't spontaneously occur. Instead, the words "I got a letter I've been waiting for!" must be accompanied with the words "Princeton accepted me into their graduate program and offered me a decent scholarship." before the two individuals will achieve similar mindsets on the subject.
While reading through the essay, I kept going back into my mind to a sort of silly tradition within my immediate family. When I was younger, as my mother, father, brother, and I sat around a table at a restaurant or other type of dinner where we each had different plates, my brother would "politely" ask if my mother would like to try some of his entree. My mother would reply "No, thank you." But this would not be the end of her answer. She would then return the question to my brother: "Preston, would you like to try some of my food." To which my brother promptly and enthusiastically replied "Yes!" This still goes on at my house, and as soon as Preston asks if anyone would like to try some of his food, we immediately offer up our own. I think this is a sort of mix between Utterance Pairs and Questions and Answers as described by Chaika.
I have read every word of the Chaika essay
ReplyDeleteI guess I never really realized how many intricacies are in our daily language; especially information prompts (Questions and manipulations.) The amazing thing is how language can shape the style of conversation or relationship you have with another person. Whether consciously or not, we can shape the outcome of social situations from the kind of words or commands we decide to give on another. Reading this article made me think of the ways in which people can subtly use language to manipulate people’s thoughts or beliefs such as use of propaganda. It can have both positive and negative effects on people or societies as a whole, and for the most part people seem not to notice.
Another interesting concept to me is where did the etiquette for exchanges come from? For example when answering the telephone the person who takes the call is the first to answer. When did this become a standard rule of telephone etiquette? Obviously there is no universal rule or it wouldn’t differ from country to country (England and France for example.) I was really interested on the origin of such rules for the types of functions discussed in the essay.
-Leslie
DeleteChaika's examination of speech acts and the nature of conversation was rather interesting, to say the least. I understood the basic ideas presented in her excerpt, and found her ideas about language's power to be fascinating! I really enjoyed her breakdown of Sacks' utterance pairs, as it was very helpful in understanding her main ideas. The manipulative power of language was something I've been considering for a long time, having watched speeches and other forms of rhetoric and communication that held a great effect on the people who listened to them. The idea that effective discourse elicits response makes good sense, and now I am affirmed in my thoughts. This reminds me of the excerpt we read a few weeks ago about disguised speech, and how our interactions can bring forward different understandings in different contexts. This excerpt further discussed that idea, explaining that language can be understood, but it's meaning can be misconstrued if an individual only understands the words being spoken. Without a knowledge of the context in which language is being used, one may never come to a full understanding of the meaning of a phrase.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this happens to me a lot, particularly while reading text messages. Because of the nature of a text, I have trouble understanding the meaning or mood of the message, without clear guidance. The messages elicit a response, but without understanding the context of the message, I REALLY struggle to understand and respond effectively. Hopefully my new understanding of discourse routines and the script of a conversation will help!
I found the opening of Chaika's essay interesting, especially when she noted that "relative social statuses, privileges and duties of the speaker and listener" come into account when considering what meaning a particular group of words evoke. I liked the example of the school auditorium lacking the proper amount of chairs. I think that this is a common linguistic feature that gets overlooked. It is not something that I think about on a day to day basis, but it is something that is a part of my everyday life. Maybe this accounts for the gap in meaning or empathy when one person is extremely excited about a particular event, but when the information is conveyed to the next person the same excitement doesn't spontaneously occur. Instead, the words "I got a letter I've been waiting for!" must be accompanied with the words "Princeton accepted me into their graduate program and offered me a decent scholarship." before the two individuals will achieve similar mindsets on the subject.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through the essay, I kept going back into my mind to a sort of silly tradition within my immediate family. When I was younger, as my mother, father, brother, and I sat around a table at a restaurant or other type of dinner where we each had different plates, my brother would "politely" ask if my mother would like to try some of his entree. My mother would reply "No, thank you." But this would not be the end of her answer. She would then return the question to my brother: "Preston, would you like to try some of my food." To which my brother promptly and enthusiastically replied "Yes!" This still goes on at my house, and as soon as Preston asks if anyone would like to try some of his food, we immediately offer up our own. I think this is a sort of mix between Utterance Pairs and Questions and Answers as described by Chaika.
-Emily Davis