LSI Exam 2 FINAL Study Guide

directness vs indirectness as style (IMPORTANT)

"direct" vs "indirect" is a common way to characterize how people talk differently, but it's more complicated than that because what it means to be (in)direct is not so straightforward It's virtually impossible to discuss (in)direct styles without implying that one is better than the other What we know is that people react negatively to others whose degree of directness differs markedly from their own Style directness is a hallmark of especially valued aspects of personal, relationship-linked identities It's also the marker of various master identities, such as a person's nationality and gender Style directness is best thought of as an umbrella concept; it includes choices about a set of related but distinct conversational practices

direct and indirect reported speech

*Indirect*: the gist of what was said is quoted generally *Direct*: enacts what the other actually said Other indicators of direct reported speech > Pronoun form: References to self in the third person (e.g., "what he doesn't know" said about self) marks a piece of talk as direct reported speech > Intonation: Changes during quoted other's comment > Verb choice: Particular verb forms that introduce reported speech can also add subtle differences to meaning. Ex: Susie *said* blah blah VERSUS Susie *says* "blah blah". "says" tends to be taken as closer to an actual quotation than saying "went", "goes" or "was like" 'Goes' vs. 'was like': 'was like' tends to be ambiguous as to whether the person really said/thought that exact utterance at the time or not Direct reported speech is an especially useful way to manage a dilemma frequently faced by storytellers > When people recount stories of troubles they have had with others, it is easy for their listeners to discount what they are saying as biased and self-serving, especially when a teller claims to be in the right and portrays the other as in the wrong. > A way to manage this presentational dilemma is to recount what was said without offering explicit assessment. > Using reported speech allows tellers to position their story as "the truth" of what happened: They are just "giving the facts" rather than a mere version, an opinionated view. > At the same time, through intonation and the emphasis given to certain words, and perhaps also in the choice of words selected, the speaker makes visible his stance toward what is being reported.

three main elements of a directive

1. Pronoun/subject: This refers to whether you use you, I, it, etc to make your directive 2. Main element: The most central part of a directive. Usually contains the main verb, except in the case of directive vocabulary, where nouns and adjectives can be the central part of the directive. It's also where we carry politeness in English > Imperative > Modals and semi-modals >Directive vocabulary > Hypothetical situations 3. Modifier: Besides building solidarity with your listener with pronoun choice, it may also be useful to give your listeners their own sense of choice by appealing to their sense of independence or respect. One way this can be accomplished is by strategic use of hedges. Similarly, you can use intensifiers to show your commitment to a statement, which might make your listener feel as if they have less choice > Hedges > Intensifiers

functions of narratives

1. argument making 2. performing speech acts 3. self-presentational devices 4. doing relational work 5. positioning the narrator in an ongoing conflict 6. expressing morally questionable or devalued viewpoints ((see textbook, pgs 227-239))

three features of everyday narratives

1. the talk concerns a particular time when an actor experienced an event; often this event is a problem, but it need not be. 2. The event being told about is newsworthy—out of the ordinary and/or interesting in some way. 3. An evaluation of the event is conveyed.

types of jointness

2 types: 1. teller-recipient involves one party telling and the other acknowledging and supporting that telling > At the most minimal level, recipients will produce simple tokens of listening (hm, yea) even nonverbal practices such as eye contact and nodding are a way of participating in the story and encouraging it to continue > May also contribute responses that are more enthusiastic, such as prolonged 'oh's, small commentaries (how awful! That's incredible! Etc), or questions that probe for amplification of particulars in the story >These minimal tokens attract little or no attention themselves - they serve mainly to encourage the storyteller to carry on 2. Tell a story together: > A particularly powerful way to display that one is closely connected to another > Here, participants chime in with different details > Everyday stories are not produced alone, whether it be the full collaboration that we see in the example or the more limited jointness that occurs when one person acts as the story listener > Oral stories are joint accomplishments > It is particularly common for the telling of one story to serve as the occasion for the telling of another. Stories frequently occur in rounds, in which one story occasions another. Telling a second story is a good way for a listener to show they got the point of the partner's story or that they sympathize and have had similar experiences > it is also a way for a conversational partner to engage in some friendly competition on whatever has become the focus of conversation ("If you think that was bad, you should hear...)

Tell a story together jointness

> A particularly powerful way to display that one is closely connected to another > Here, participants chime in with different details > Everyday stories are not produced alone, whether it be the full collaboration that we see in the example or the more limited jointness that occurs when one person acts as the story listener > Oral stories are joint accomplishments > It is particularly common for the telling of one story to serve as the occasion for the telling of another. Stories frequently occur in rounds, in which one story occasions another. Telling a second story is a good way for a listener to show they got the point of the partner's story or that they sympathize and have had similar experiences > it is also a way for a conversational partner to engage in some friendly competition on whatever has become the focus of conversation ("If you think that was bad, you should hear...)

stance accretion

A consistency in stance expression Over time, people frequently express similar stances toward some particular others and issues (Damari) this is what gives people's person identities solidity ~~~ Stance accretion accounts for our view of ourselves and others as having personalities and character, not as fleeting, ever-changing entities In an important way, a person is made up of the stances they regularly take

markedness and stance

A linguistic choice that gives information about a person's beliefs is his or her use of *marked* or *unmarked* forms General characteristics > Unmarked forms reveal what a speaker believes to be typical, usual, or routine > Marked forms reveal what a speaker regards as atypical, unusual, or uncertain > Unmarked forms are shorter and simpler than marked ones > How marking is done is dependent on the conversational context 1. Identities are expected to go together > Identities are typically understood to co-occur in certain patterns. When identities co-occur in the to-be-expected fashion, speakers referring to others usually leave the co-occurrence unsaid ~ Ex: if I say "the judge came into the courtroom" what kind of jugde is it likely to be? >>an old white man > But the identities are not what were expected, speakers often note that in that their description (e.g. the "black judge" or the "female judge" Other exs: male nurse, gay professor, Native American, women's soccer > When a speaker chooses to mark something that is usually unmarked, it is taken as evidence that the person is critical of existing social practices ~ Ex: in a study about women friends, McCullough described a woman she had interviewd as being at that point in the "conventional heterosexual lifestyle" at which she might be considering having children > A feature of the woman's identity (heterosexuality) is marked (i.e. made explicit) that is usually left unmarked > More expected would have been that thte woman is at a point "in her life cycle" at which she is contemplating having children > In marking heterosexuality, the writer makes visible that differences in sexual orientation are a typical kind of difference among people > In essence, by linguistically marking a feature of personhood that is usually left unmarked, the author reveals her commitment to normalizing lesbian and gay lives By examining what is marked versus what remains unmarked, we can gain insight into what is believed to be generally true about certain identities > Ex: Lakoff's analysis of "mother" forms ~ the unmarked form of the word is mother, but various marking options exist: ~ stepmother, adoptive mother, biological mother, foster mother, single mother, unwed mother, working mother ~ all of these marking point to what is taken to be the prototype mother - the ideal is presumed ~ basically, to use the unmarked form of mother suggests that the person is a woman who supplied her half of the child's genes, is married to the child's father, stays home to nurture the child, and is one generation older than the child. that the unmarked form makes assumptions about what is routine is to be expected > Consider how unusual it sounds to describe someone as a wed mother but how normal it sounds to hear another described as an single mother > although marking is used for what is taken to be atypical, the atypical in an absolute empirical sense may actually be what is usual and commonplace ~ Ex. The majority of women who are mothers actually work outside the home. Thus we have a case in which an everyday talking practice has not caught up with the societal change in employment patterns 2. Being Knowledgeable or Ignorant: *question formulations* is another area in which markedness becomes extremely relevant > One identity at stake when a person asks another a question is whether the question asker sees the recipient as knowledgeable. > Question formulations cue whether the other is presumed knowledgeable or is seen as not likely to know ~ Ex. Unmarked form of asking directions are usually short and simple: "How do I get to the UMC?" ~ Marked forms would be ones that recognized that the recipient might not know the answer: "By any chance could you tell me how to get to the UMC?" or "I was wondering, do you know how to get to the UMC?" Of interest here is the fact that either the marked or the unmarked question option could be appropriate (i.e. a marked form or using an unmarked option may either yield smooth communication or cause problems). Whether problems occur will depend on the match between what a recipient knows and whether a marked or unmarked form is used > If a questioner's utterance presumes that the other will or should know something—that is, the unmarked form is used—and the question recipient does not know, she may feel embarrassed. > If a question asker uses a marked form—thereby implying the other's possible lack of knowledge—and the question recipient does know, she may feel insulted. To be treated as a novice when one is knowledgeable generally offends people. 3. Being skeptical or believing what another says regarding the stance one takes toward what another has said > do communicators respond to others as if they believe them or do they seem to be skeptical? > In situations in which an institutional actor is involved, with a number of people offering different versions of events (e.g. courtrooms, news reporting, etc.), we might be concerned about whether that person is really neutral Perhaps the most frequent situation in which people convey skepticism is in reporting what another person who is not present said to them. ~ Ex: Imagine a conversation between a wife and husband in which the wife is reporting that their babysitter called to say he could not make it. Conveying belief or disbelief becomes more complicated when there are more people and multiple stories involved > People whose job it is to intervene in conflicts and sort out competing stories (e.g. marriage counselors, mediators, judges) need to do significant work to show that they are impartial and neutral, not privileging one person's account over the other's. > What markers will indicate a neutral stance will vary with the interactional identity and will involve more than use of marked forms > Of note, in institutional contexts like mediation, use of the markers mentioned previously usually conveys neutrality rather than skepticism ~ Consider a mediator working with a divorcing couple on child custody arrangements who says: In this context, use of the phrase "according to you" marks that the mediator recognizes that what each person is saying is a version of the truth and thereby indicates neutrality. > When multiple stories are part of the situation, such as is the case in a divorce dispute, and the speaker is not one of the disputing parties, then a stance indicator shifts its meaning, cueing a different, albeit related stance: in this case, neutrality

indicators of interest and involvement

A pervasive concern of most people is whether conversational partners are interested in them and what they are saying or the opposite (i.e. uninterested or even hostile). Indicators of involvement are reasonably trustworthy; however, there are some complexities in interpreting them that are often not well recognized. Stance indicators of involvement cut across communicative channels High levels of involvement differ from lower levels in terms of vocal cues, facial and bodily gestures, and selection of particular discourse forms. > Involvement typically goes with increased levels of physiological arousal. Thus the signs of physiological arousal tend to be taken as stance indicators of involvement. > Deborah Tannen refers to a package of voice and speech pacing features as *conversational signals* ~ When people (1) talk faster, (2) pause less frequently and for shorter times, (3) use a louder voice, and (4) are more vocally animated (i.e., use more variation in their pitch) than other speakers, they are using a high involvement style ~ When they increase these features from their own baseline, they are displaying an involved stance Judgments about an in-the-moment stance are relative to a communicator's baseline talking style (e.g., how fast and loud does she normally speak?). --see nonverbal immediacy-- In addition to nonverbal indicators of involvement, there are also linguistic markers. > Ex. In group situations, the telling of personal stories marks a higher level of involvement than offering abstracted and general statements > Ex. How turn taking is managed (e.g., how many instances of simultaneous speech or interruption occur) conveys group members' involvement (or lack thereof). --see emotion labor--

reported speech

A primary conversational device used to convey evaluation. It is stating what the self or another person said. It is a rhetorical device to present what one is uttering as if it were one's exact words or those of another. In that sense, THIS might better have been named "constructed dialogue" or "reconstructed speech" > It's unlikely to be an accurate replay. People are notoriously bad at remembering exactly what someone else said ~~ Two types of reported speech: • Indirect: the gist of what was said is quoted generally • Direct: enacts what the other actually said

avowals of feelings (of hostility)

A way that speakers in a public meeting expressed negative stances was to name the feeling they were having at the moment. > Because feelings are assumed to have causes, to "avow a feeling" in a situation in which particular others are responsible is to implicate them. > A particularly subtle way to cue negativity is for a speaker to say that he is "concerned." ~ To describe what one is feeling as "concerned" is to imply that the other has done something inappropriate and concerning. ¡ > Speakers in this study of public meetings also announced that they were "angry," "appalled," and "hurt." > Although the exact stance that will be conveyed depends on the feeling named and the action it is linked to, most often the stance cued will differ from what is named. ~ When a speaker says she "is angry" in a public meeting, it cues a critical, disapproving stance toward the target's actions, but an actual stance of anger will be expressed in other ways than a speaker self-labeling her feelings as angry. We would not usually think of someone announcing she was "surprised" as an attack, but it can be. Consider what another speaker at the same school board meeting on reading test scores said. (see Ch 9 slide 37) > What makes the parent's announcement of her "surprise" an attack is that she attributes her feeling as arising because of a "misunderstanding." ~ To describe a person as "misunderstanding" can be a nice way to imply that another is wrong. ¡ ~ In this particular exchange, though, the misunderstanding is framed as surprising because of the board member's credential (a Ph.D. in education), which strongly implicates that the president should have known better Such an implication is insulting, and we see the president labeling the parent as violating the rule for meeting conduct that forbids personal attacks The parent rejects the idea that her remark was an instance of personal attack > But by disputing only that it was personal, the parent conveys that her remark, indeed, was attacking, albeit a reasonable kind of attack given the situation

language contact and change

As people interact, they converge and diverge in different settings and influence the way language change occurs, how fast it occurs, and in what ways it occurs ~~~ An inevitable result of language contact is language change The minority or lower-status language speakers in a region are usually the ones to accommodate (or to be made to accommodate) to the dominant or prestige language Other reasons for accommodation: > When groups of people need to work together who don't share a language > Such conditions are ripe for creating additional dialects of a language (and their precursors, pidgins and creoles) and for influencing native languages. Whenever there is a large influx of people to a new place, the local language is bound at the very least to absorb some new terms. ~ One result of language contact is language death

directness and information-seeking acts

Cultural differences in style directness are especially likely in another kind of speech act: talk that seeks to get information from another person Questions: "why don't you have children?" "were you married before?" "how much money do you earn in your job?" If asked by an acquaintance in America or Germany, there are likely to be assessed by the speaker's conversational partner as rude and inappropriately direct In a study of German and Chinese students conversing in Germany, Gunthner found that both groups of students reacted negatively to each other > Germans found the Chinese to be boring and not interesting conversationalists - they didn't do enough asserting of their own opinions > Chinese regarded the German students as rude, aggressive, and often offensive > Interestingly, although it was the Germans who were generally perceived as more direct, it was the Chinese who found it reasonable to seek information directly about the above Qs This brings us to even more complexity when it comes to directness: > Although cultural groups are routinely described in terms of their relative directness or indirectness- for example, Chinese and Japanese are more indirect than Germans and Americans - the actual picture is more complicated > Cultural groups disagree about what topics are to be regarded as sensitive or private info ~ So although it may be reasonable to describe Chinese communicators as generally more indirect, there will be particular situations in which they will be more direct than Americans or Germans would be > In another example, Kochman notes that the practice of directly asking someone what they do within the first few minutes of meeting, a practice common among middle-class American whites, is sometimes seen as inappropriate for social occasions among African Americans ~ To ask a new acquaintance straightforwardly about his or her occupation is to treat a person's job as saying something important about who he or she is ~ In a community in which underemployment and unemployment are not uncommon, job info becomes a delicate topic, and such a question becomes inappropriate and intrusive So how do people request info indirectly? > Assume that Seth, a friend of Reesa, wants to know where Reesa was last night. How can he find out? 1. He could ask directly • However, to do so might suggest that he sees himself as having the right to know this information, a right usually assumed only in close relationships. • Or this comment might be interpreted as evidence that Seth is possessive or jealous 2. He could report his own actions on the previous night (indirectly) • Hey I called last night and you didn't answer.. • Hey I drove by ur house last night and ur car wasn't there.. • Each of these statements is a report of Seth's activities, however it is quite likely to lead Reesa to spontaneously mention what she was doing the previous night. (oh, my brother was in town so we went out to dinner😊) REGARDLESS, these^ are all *fishing for information*. This works by virtue of commenting on something that the speaker has seen or heard that implicates the other. In essence, a "fishing comment" is a piece of talk designed to encourage the partner to disclose information, but it does not have the demand quality that is present in direct inquiry

performing speech acts (another function of narratives)

If the son is a teen who does things of which the mother disapproves, the weed story quite possibly was meant (and interpreted) as a warning: something to the effect of "if you continue to do wild things and smoke pot, as I suspect you may be doing, you'll get arrested, hurt lots of people, and face all this grief, too." The mother's story, then, is an indirect way to perform the act of warning. Of course, the son could always challenge his mother on the story: "Why are you telling me this story? What has this got to do with me?" And the mother might explicitly acknowledge that her purpose was to warn her son: "Well, I get worried and I don't want that to happen to you." Or, for any number of reasons, she may deny her intent to warn: "I just figured you might want to know what's happening with Barb." In the previous chapter we considered advantages and disadvantages of using an indirect style. In general, telling a story is a relatively common way to perform sensitive speech acts such as advising, criticizing, or reprimanding another. The story enables a speaker to do the sensitive action, but to do so in a manner that is not a straightforward way of taking responsibility for performing it. Stories may also be used to perform interpersonally positive speech acts — for example, when a friend recounts to a third party a story of another person's accomplishment in front of that person. Or, more complexly, one person can invite another to tell a story about his or her accomplishment in the presence of an influential third party in hopes of eliciting the third party's praise. In middle-class American families, this is an especially common activity for mothers to do with regard to a child in front of Dad. > Example 10.10 shows what this kind of exchange looks like.

emotion labor

In certain work roles employees are expected to display a positive stance regularly, and failure to do so may lead to dismissal from a position ~~~ > By labeling positive stance displays of this type "*emotion labor*," Hochschildreminds us of how effortful such communication can sometimes be Complexities in assessing involvement stances arise from different speech communities and individuals within these communities having distinctive usual styles and degrees of expressiveness > Europeans from warmer regions such as Greece and Italy (and American ethnic groups originating from these regions) have more involved conversational styles than communicators from cooler areas (e.g., Germany, Sweden). Thus, to accurately assess a conversational partner's involvement stance, one has to know that other well.

joint storytelling

In institutional settings such as interviews or presentations, these joint markers will be less visible, although even here at least a few will be present

swearing as stance

Jay offers an interesting analysis of the links between negative stances such as anger and cursing and other obscenities (see Table). It illustrates some of the most common kinds of profanity and the reasons why these terms are usually offensive These have all been shown to be strong cues of hostility. When they are used, they usually cue that the speaker is angry or feeling hostile toward the person who is the focus of talk There are, however, exceptions... > Exceptions often involve racial-ethnic references when used by someone who is a member of that particular ethnic group. > However, when used across categories of people, there may be layers of both positive and negative meanings in what such a term cues. ~ examples: hey bitch! (?) ~ examples: you *****! (excitedly)

self-presentational devices

Like all talk, stories may be inspected for what they convey about a speaker. But when the story that a speaker tells includes oneself as a character, a story is twice as informative Context is an important component of presenting the self through stories. Casual stories such as these tend to be associated with private, interpersonal conversations, but stories (as examples have already shown) occur everywhere—in institutional settings, in workplaces—and may be a crucial component of the context even if they're not part of the "official" business of what goes on there. Stories that are told at work present personal and interactional identities, identities related to one's social life and one's professional trajectory Narratives occur in meetings, in casual conversations, in interviews; they occur with coworkers, managers, clients, and customers. Stories told at work will almost always be relevant to one's professional identity—even when those stories are not themselves about work. Moral stances are one facet of stories that are incorporated in the way people position themselves in stories to others, about others, in work settings. When a speaker tells a story in which they are an actor, they are presenting a picture of what they do (or refrain from doing) under some particular circumstances. Through the details of a person's action, a picture can be built up as to whether they are trustworthy, fair-minded, a braggart, sexually loose, and so on. Although tellers do not usually think about themselves as agents making moral claims, nonetheless stories do present speakers in a moral light. This light need not be terribly bright, but it is inevitably there. Most communities have a tradition of telling certain sorts of stories as a way of confessing and learning from one's mistakes or as a lesson to others, precisely to present or negotiate cultural norms. Ex. Chief Kobe talking about how he was up late working

self-presentational devices (another function of narratives)

Like all talk, stories may be inspected for what they convey about a speaker. But when the story that a speaker tells includes oneself as a character, a story is twice as informative. Context is an important component of presenting the self through stories. Casual stories such as these tend to be associated with private, interpersonal conversations, but stories (as examples have already shown) occur everywhere —in institutional settings, in workplaces— and may be a crucial component of the context even if they're not part of the "official" business of what goes on there. Stories that are told at work present personal and interactional identities, identities related to one's social life and one's professional trajectory Narratives occur in meetings, in casual conversations, in interviews; they occur with coworkers, managers, clients, and customers. Stories told at work will almost always be relevant to one's professional identity—even when those stories are not themselves about work. Moral stances are one facet of stories that are incorporated in the way people position themselves in stories to others, about others, in work settings. When a speaker tells a story in which they are an actor, they are presenting a picture of what they do (or refrain from doing) under some particular circumstances. Through the details of a person's action, a picture can be built up as to whether they are trustworthy, fair-minded, a braggart, sexually loose, and so on. Although tellers do not usually think about themselves as agents making moral claims, nonetheless stories do present speakers in a moral light. This light need not be terribly bright, but it is inevitably there. Most communities have a tradition of telling certain sorts of stories as a way of confessing and learning from one's mistakes or as a lesson to others, precisely to present or negotiate cultural norms. > Ex. Chief Kobe talking about how he was up late working

differences between the 3 communities (Heath, 1982)

Maintown: - more likely to be successful in school. - variety of questions during reading - labeling and what-questions (which persist throughout development) - reason-explanations and affective commentaries. - prioritize the main ideas and get the information they need out of the story. - Parents continue developing children's knowledge construction throughout their children's lives/school years, which links old and new knowledge and aids in their learning and success in school long-term. "For these children, the bedtime story is simply an early link in a long chain of interrelated patterns of taking meaning from the environment." The focus is on the individual as respondent and cooperative negotiator of meaning (from books). Roadville: - children learn to provides lables, features, and what-explanations and develop listening and performing behaviors that helps them in their early grades - children are discouraged from participating in reading. - They are also not encouraged to move their understanding of books into other situational contexts or to apply it in their general knowledge of the word. - books are to entertain, inform, and instruct (once again, not to participate) - The child should learn/remember what they read and what is read to them for later questioning (rather than cooperative participatory questions). - There is little deviation or creativity allowed in reading. - Students do well in the first three grades, but once the curriculum moves on to reason-explanations or commentaries the children do poorly. They don't do well on activities that require more independent thinking, such as creative writing activities, and they will retell stories they already know instead of making their own up. - By fourth grade, Roadville student achievement falls. Students are very good at following orders, being good students, adhering to school norms, and reading, but they don't do well with critical thinking/creative thought. - Parents do not sustain any sort of question asking or reading linking as Maintown parents do, which hinders the success of these Roadville children. - children are provided with simplified Bible stories as part of their emergent reading. This can be seen as putting adult content into simplified, child-friendly forms. - They also feel that the proper use of words and the understanding of the meaning of the written word is very important in religious success. Trackton: - parent's do not simplify their language for children, label items, or allude to books in the real world. - Children learn from the world around them and the continuous communication around them. - Children select from this stimuli and practice it themselves. This leads to Trackton children have trouble labeling and listing features - unprepared for the what-questions - Trackton kids are great at analogical questions, function, and real-world comparisons. They have become skilled at forming their own connections and contextualizing situations, but they face problems when asked to identify specific features such as shape, size, number, etc. Because these children were never asked for reason-explanations or affective statements in their developmental years, they aren't able to do well in language arts in school later on, where the majority of work is based on these. This leads to many students 'giving up' by middle school. To excel in school, they have to learn to adapt to the way standard schools use language creatively with metaphor, fictionalization, etc. In the upper primary grades (4th/5th) their narrative skills a rewarded. They distinguish real-life narratives from fictional stories..

argument making (one function of narratives)

One reason to use stories rather than other kinds of evidence, such as research reports, statistics, or the testimony of experts, is that stories are highly persuasive. Psychologists have described this as the "vividness effect." Stories are memorable and affect emotions more than other kinds of evidence do. This feature of stories, in fact, is both the advantage of and the problem with using stories as evidence. Stories say nothing about how typical an event is. If a conversational partner can make salient that a person's story is extraordinary, she can direct others' thinking away from the conclusion that a story is seeking to argue for. In Koby's comment, the story functioned as evidence for a claim he had explicitly articulated. However, stories may also comprise a claim and its evidence all wrapped up together. The weed story recounts how Barb got into trouble with the police, what Barb has to do as punishment, and all the grief Barb is causing her parents. At one level the mom's story is providing newsworthy information about a person both parties know. It is informing. But if we think of the story as an argument, as a claim and its evidence bundled together, we could hear the story as the mom advancing a claim that it's bad to smoke pot and using as her evidence the story of what happened to Barb when she did.

Language endangerment and death

One result of language contact is THIS THIS happens when fewer and fewer people can fluently speak a language and eventually the language dies out Sometimes there is little to be done when this change is in process; other times, it's too late Linguistics argue over whether all languages need saving One result of the threat that dominant languages have posed to other languages during language contact is that more and more communities are trying to bring back their languages from the brink of death Do languages need saving or is language 'survival of the fittest' just the natural way of things? How do we decide what to save and what to let die?

positive politeness strategies (involvement politeness style)

Puts a premium on recognizing others' positive face wants. Speakers using an involvement style will emphasize friendliness and building connection to others How to "do" THIS: > Use *indirect speech acts* that demonstrate closeness and solidarity between, appealing to friendship, making other ppl feel good, and emphasizing that both speakers have a common goal > Brown and Levisnon (1987) report that one of the main types of positive politeness strategies that people use is to claim common ground by attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. > Ex. "I know you really hate parties, but please come anyway. All your favorite people will be there and it won't be as much fun without you."

negative politeness strategies

Recognizing others' negative face wants > This style respects the rights of others to their own autonomy and freedom of choice How to "do" THIS: > Speakers can avoid imposing by emphasizing the importance of each other's time and concerns, using apologies and hesitations, or using a question to give them the opportunity to say no. > Ex. "Sorry to bother you. I couldn't possibly borrow $10 could I? I forgot my wallet." > The extent of option-giving influences the degree of politeness. In many cases, the greater the chance that the speaker offers the hearer to say 'no', the more polite > Speakers can also minimize the imposition by making it seem smaller than it is, or by adding devices like hedges that mitigate the imposition (eg "if possible", "if not too much trouble", "if it's okay")

differences between oral and written narrative

Some oral narratives are quite similar to written ones, like we see in book-like tales told around a campfire However, most oral stories are told to serve personal and relational purposes other than giving info and entertainment. > Oral narratives are produced in talk, as such, they must be "occasioned" (have a reason for telling and a go-ahead form listeners), and, at least to some degree, are jointly produced Differences with written stories: > In contrast to written stories that exist as whole units apart from any specific occasion, everyday stories need to be introduced into conversations > People can't just launch into telling a story any time they wish > This means either that stories are invited by a convo partner, or that a speaker who wants to tell one makes a bid to do so ex: ?

descriptions (of hostility)

Sometimes speakers describe events in ways that portray the actions and the parties responsible in highly negative terms Although we tend to think of "description" as neutral, much of the time it is positioned and stance-cueing Particularly in situations of dispute, people's descriptions are strategic tools to frame opposing others as incompetent, wrong, or stupid > Descriptions do this stance-cueing work because language inevitably conveys moral assessments In a meeting of a local school district that followed the publishing of its reading test scores, citizens turned out at the board meeting to criticize the district's elected officials for how they had interpreted the meaning of the scores. > Describing board members as dangerously misusing statistics and having "frightening ignorance" conveys a highly critical stance, as does characterizing their interpretation of the statistics as "unjustified, even silly." By the way the speaker described himself—as a business consultant for international corporations and as regularly interpreting statistical data—he frames the board members as possessing limited competence and portrays himself as the real expert (see ch 9 ppt slide 35 for the actual transcript)

official English movement

THIS emerged in the United States in the early 1980s. Similar movements have been occurring in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, although they have been much less successful. James Crawford, a scholar who extensively studied the controversy, describes the emergence of the movement as bizarre given that the 1980 census had revealed that all but 2% of speakers over 4 years of age spoke English and only 11% were regular speakers of another language. The movement began in the United States when then-Senator Hayakawa introduced into Congress a constitutional amendment to declare English the official language of the United States. The proposal failed, but several years later Hayakawa started a lobbying group called U.S. English. The purpose of the group was to lobby states to pass laws declaring English that state's official language. The lobbying group was enormously successful. Five years after its start, the group had over 400,000 members and an organizational budget of 6 million dollars. By 1990, 17 states had passed Official English statues or approved constitutional amendments; by 2012, the number of states was up to 28. The content of different states' laws varies considerably, from single-sentence declarations to complex documents that spell out the contexts in which English is required to be used and what circumstances would be allowable as exceptions. Though the movement was most visible in the 1980s and 1990s, it is by no means gone. In 2009, Nashville, Tennessee, voters rejected a proposal that would have made Nashville the largest English-only (except in situations of health and safety) city in the United States. In 2012, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum reignited the controversy by suggesting that Puerto Rico, a Spanish- speaking U.S. territory, should make English its primary language as a condition of statehood. Although the Official English movement framed itself as being pro-English, from its start it was very much antibilingual. Recruitment of members to the lobbying group (U.S. English) was particularly likely in those geographic areas (e.g., Florida and California) that were feeling the impact of heavy Asian and Hispanic immigration. Scholarly commentators attribute the success of the movement to two main causes. A first cause of the movement's success was the quiet passage in the 1960s and 1970s of legislation that was sympathetic to linguistic minorities. Key pieces of legislation included the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, which made federal funding available for the first time to schools that developed educational programs geared to helping children learn English or to maintain languages other than English. Another especially important event was the class action suit brought in the name of a Chinese student (Lau) in San Francisco, in which it was argued that a fair and equal educational opportunity required more than putting a non-English- speaking child into a regular classroom. *The Lau case*, as it came it be called, made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1974 that students with limited English proficiency were legally entitled to special help in their schools. A final piece of legislation seen as important was the Voting Rights Act of 1975 that required any voting area in which 5% or more of the citizens spoke a language other than English to have access to ballots in their own language. Critics' Views of The English-Only Movement: In response to the growing success of the Official English movement, several influential institutions began to speak out. Major newspapers took editorial positions against Official English policies. These newspapers argued that passing laws to recognize English as the official American language was unnecessary. In addition, professional organizations, such as the International Communication Association, the Organization of Teachers of English as a Second Language, and the American Psychological Association, argued that English-only initiatives had had a primarily negative impact. For instance, the American Psychological Association argued that English-only initiatives lessened self-esteem and lowered the academic achievement of linguistic minorities, as well as contributing to creating poorer relationships among ethnic and racial groups in the United States. In labeling the movement "English Only," critics highlighted what they saw as its main effect: promoting an intolerant stance toward racial and ethnic minorities in the guise of patriotism about English. In addition to fostering intolerance, an irony of the English-Only movement was that it was occurring "in the face of growing demands for multilingual abilities in the workplace." How should American identity be linked to speaking English? Does American society need to strengthen the connection? Does the United States need to create a society in which speaking languages other than English becomes sufficiently stigmatized that most Americans will avoid doing so? Or is a weaker link reasonable and desirable: one that regards English as the most usual language spoken by Americans, but not one that is a requirement? As our readers can probably infer from the way we have posed this question, our own position is to favor a weaker link: English speaking, and especially the speaking of certain dialects of English, is a strong cue that a person is a native-born American. However, to make language proficiency a requirement is neither needed nor desirable. English does not need legislation to prop it up, nor is it fair or wise to devalue Americans who speak other languages. Interestingly, not only is language use linked to identity but so too is a person's attitude about the issue. Whether a person is for or against Official English laws (as is the case with other politically contested issues) will be taken as an indicator of one's likely political tilt. That is, the political identities of liberal and conservative, to identify the most commonly used ones, are attributed to speakers when they express pro- or anti-views toward a single issue. Based on expression of one attitude, a speaker will be assumed to hold a larger set of opinions. This, of course, is highly problematic, but it is a rather common way to make sense of who another person is. For instance, speakers who express negative assessments of Official English would be expected to espouse views that are anti-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-government social services, and so on. Those speakers favoring Official English will be assumed to also favor the death penalty, support minimum government support for services such as health care and welfare, and be pro-life. In membership categorization terms (Chapter 3), people with certain category memberships are seen as holding certain beliefs and as overlapping with other categories. This knowledge of what attitudes will be taken as clustering together is made visible when people do the rather common action of prefacing an opinion with a disclaimer. In saying "I'm not a bleeding heart, but I don't think we need these Official English laws" or "I don't usually argue the conservative line, but I think we need Official English laws," a communicator makes visible what they are assuming to be the usual attitude package. At the same time these disclaimers instruct the conversational partner not to assume that the speaker holds the other attitudes regarded as going with the focal one.

directness and speech acts

The directness of a request needed is determined by the social power and distance between the interlocutors, as well as degree of imposition involved When a speech act is indirect, it requires listeners to do more inferential work to arrive at a speaker's intended interactional meaning because the literal meaning of the utterance is different from what the speaker is trying to convey Where it gets interesting is that indirect speech acts always carry both direct and indirect meanings. A speaker may intend to be direct, but this intention does not rule out the possibility that a listener will assign their statement an indirect meaning Thus, an ever-present challenge for communicators is to decide when conversational partners are expressing themselves directly and when their intended meaning is an indirect one ex: "Hey, you wanna come up and see my new HD Flat screen TV?" This is code for come into my apartment and let's have sex (if between two adults who had like just went on a date or somethin LOL). Need to take into account the variables at play in interpreting the invitation. No one expects directness all the time: ~ In a study of 7 cultures, Blum-Kulka et al found that every cultural group believed that speakers should vary their degree of directness according to the situation ~ Interestingly, across cultures there was some agreement about how situations should affect the degree of directness Ex: direct directives are appropriate if a police officer were asking a citizen to move their car Ex: direct directives are inappropriate if a person were asking a neighbor for a ride Ex: favors were to be performed indirectly and with politeness forms, whereas action sinvolving relational rights could be performed directly ~Not surprisingly, there was also a lot divergence among cultures Ex: when a college roommate fails to do their share of the chores. The vast majority of Argentineans used direct statement directives, whereas only a tiny percentage of Australians did *Directives*: trying to get someone to do something. Three main elements to a directive (eg requests and demands) 1. Pronoun/subject: This refers to whether you use you, I, it, etc to make your directive 2. Main element: The most central part of a directive. Usually contains the main verb, except in the case of directive vocabulary, where nouns and adjectives can be the central part of the directive. It's also where we carry politeness in English •> Imperative o Direct and usually imply authority o Ex: Don't party the night before an exam •> Modals and semi-modals o Most common type of directive o Indicate obligation, suggestion, or necessity o Ex: you must take SPC2300 o Some modals have overlapping meaning (e.g. both obligation and necessity) o Ex: you shouldn't party the night before an exam •>Directive vocabulary o Can be nouns, adjs, or verbs; many have a single root with all three forms o Contain directive meaning by themselves o Paired with pronouns or subjects other than 'you' o Can be used to restrict listener involvement because listener is not the subject o Can imply authority when the speaker is not the subject Ex: It is *required* that you write a term paper Ex: My *suggestion* is that you ask the professor •> Hypothetical situations o An appeal to listener involvement by allowing the listener to identify with the speaker Ex: 'I would' can be considered short for 'if I were you I would' Ex: in this situation 'I would' probably refer to textbook???? o Can be used to present possible futures Ex: *If* you fail the exam, *you won't* be able to get an A Ex: I think *you'll* do fine, don't worry 3. Modifier: Besides building solidarity with your listener with pronoun choice, it may also be useful to give your listeners their own sense of choice by appealing to their sense of independence or respect. One way this can be accomplished is by strategic use of hedges. Similarly, you can use intensifiers to show your commitment to a statement, which might make your listener feel as if they have less choice > Hedges ~ Can appeal to listener sense of independence ~ Soften strength of a directive ~ Can be small words: just, kind of, might ~ Can be phrases: by the way, it seems to me that.., I don't know, one possibility would be for... ~ Can modify just a word, a whole phrase, a clause, or a whole utterance Ex: you *just* need to emphasize this more clearly Ex: you *might* want to consider taking French Ex: *I don't know, I think* you could ask the professor > Intensifiers ~ Can restrict listener sense of independence ~ Give the listener the perception that the speaker is more committed to the directive and that the listenener has less choice ~ Can be small words: really, definitely, absolutely, totally ~ Can be phrases: for sure, I really feel that, in my opinion... ~ Can modify just a word, a whole phrase, a clause, or a whole utterance Ex: You *really* have to be careful about this Ex: definitely Situational factors influence which form a speaker will select In educational environments, teachers and advisors usually give directives to students, while students make requests of teachers and advisors

newsworthiness (reportability)

The event being told about is (at least a little) out of the ordinary and/or interesting in some way At its simplest, to tell a story is to implicitly claim that one has something to say that deserves an uninterrupted lengthy turn at talking The content of Koby's phone call (the police from the JonBenet Ramsey case) certainly would qualify > Someone comparing a murder investigation to clue... ~~~ In ongoing relationships newsworthiness often becomes tied to events that have led one or another party to have some kind of feelings, whether they be positive (amusement, happiness) or negative (frustration, boredom, anger), strong or mild. This feature is the hardest to assess in stories bcuz what counts as "newsworthy" is very much a matter of judgement, and it is not uncommon for people to disagree also referred to as 'reportability'

narrative

The more formal name for stories include both written and oral forms accounts of past events that convey a teller's point of view ~~~

Language crossing / code crossing

The speech associated with one group (or particular ethnic identity, for example) being used by another group the speaker doesn't belong to Ben Rampton (1997) studied teens in London and the Midlands of England > They used particular dialects related to their own ethnic group (eg Bangladesh, African Caribbean,) but would "cross" into another dialect, language, or style of speaking > why? for social purposes such as challenging authority, entertaining friends, destabilizing the usual hierarchical relationships with adults, doign relational work with particular others, etc. The use of each language depended on the setting, the interactional situation, and who was around at the time Rampton's conclusions: > The 'right' to use it to claim membership of a group may have to be ratified > Crossing involved 'borrowing' a variety and perhaps trespassing on language territory that one can't authentically claim

features of everyday narratives

What makes an everyday story a "narrative"? In the 1960's, Labov and Waletsky argued that stories abt personal experiences were the simplest and "most fundamental" kind of narrative Typically, the everyday stories reconstruct self's and related others' experiences and can be characterized by 3 features 1. The talk concerns a particular time when an actor experienced an event; often this event is a problem, but it need not be • See Chief Koby's story • He begins by setting the scene, describing a specific time in the past (a couple days ago), provides a bit more info to orient his listeners • Similar to many everyday stories, but quite uncommon in written ones, we hear nothing about how Koby actually dealt with this event > Did he hang up? Did he answer the question? WTH happened?? > To not include info abt how a problem was handled keeps the story's point focused on the nature of the problem rather than the solution • It manifests the first features of everyday narratives: It tells about a particular time when a person had an experience 2. The event being told about is *newsworthy* - out of the ordinary and/or interesting in some way • Newsworthiness is also referred to as "reportability" • This is the hardest to assess in stories, bcuz what counts as "newsworthy" is very much a matter of judgement, and it is not uncommon for people to disagree • At its simplest, though, to tell a story is to implicitly claim that one has something to say that deserves an uninterrupted lengthy turn at talking • In general, newsworthiness means that an event is at least a little out of the ordinary • The content of Koby's phone call certainly would qualify > Someone comparing a murder investigation to clue... • In ongoing relationships newsworthiness often becomes tied to events that have led one or another party to have some kind of feelings, whether they be positive (amusement, happiness) or negative (frustration, boredom, anger), strong or mild. 3. An *evaluation* of the event is conveyed. • Ex: when you evaluate an event "That's messed up; sick" Evaluations do not need to be uttered explicitly. Quite often a speaker will leave it up to the listener to infer what the evaluation should be by providing guidance through the way the story is told When pppl narrate events that made them feel angry, an evaluative dimension that becomes relevant is the reasonableness of the person's anger > That is, a judgement ppl make abt their own and each other's anger - certainly in a therapy session but also in everyday exchanges - is whether or not it was reasonable > Bcuz of this, the point of anger stories is often something like "The person [the other] who triggered my anger was bad" or potentially, albeit less frequently, "I was silly, wrong, and acting unreasonably to get angry." *Narratives* are accounts of past events that convey a teller's point of view The evaluation of the events may be stated explicitly, or it may be built into the story and conveyed through particulars that are included or omitted, as well as by the language used to describe them *Reported speech*: a primary conversational device used to convey evaluation. It is stating what the self or another person said. It is a rhetorical device to present what one is uttering as if it were one's exact words or those of another. In that sense, reported speech might better have been named "constructed dialogue" or "reconstructed speech" > It's unlikely to be an accurate replay. People are notoriously bad at remembering exactly what someone else said

role of stories in early literacy practices (Heath)

When stories are told to children in an interactive way, regularly, and with what-questions, build up to reason-explanations and affective commentaries, and almost constant reference to stories during everyday life, these practices can lead to children's success the public school system and subsequent standardized testing. It prepares them for reading comprehension in schools and the types of questions they'll be asked. Stories are great for babies and children learners, however if reading isn't done correctly, (like in Roadville), then the children will fall behind in school quickly ~ See the Heath reading

rhetorical questions (of hostility)

a question to which no answer is expected occur frequently at speech beginnings as a device to build interest in a topic Teachers also regularly use rhetorical questions in giving lectures when they are working to have a lively, involved style rhetorical questions in contentious public meetings allow speakers to make highly critical claims without incurring the negative personal assessment that might be made if accusations, especially unsubstantiated, were straightforwardly offered. Rhetorical questions enable speakers to protect their own face, while (somewhat) lessening the degree of face attack on the other

expressiveness (style)

concerned with how lively speakers are and how straightforwardly they display their feelings ~~~ Kochman identified 2 styles guiding emotional expressions that differentiated white & black Americans 1. In general, African Americans tend to favor forceful expression, whereas whites are likely to prefer a more subdued and restrained style 2. For many whites, forceful expression is seen as "irresponsible" or "in bad taste" but for many African Americans the low-keyed styles often used by whites comes across as "dead", "cold" or "not for real" > The different evaluations of expressiveness styles can be traced to the ways each speech community thinks about the rights and responsibilities of communicators. > According to Kochman, whites are likely to see emotion as a dangerous thing, capable of easily damaging others ~ Because of the damage potential of emotional expression, it is the responsibilityof speakers to rein their feelings in to protect the sensibilities of listeners ~ People in their role as listeners have the right to expect others be tactful and to edit out strong or hurtful feelings ~ Many feelings should be kept inside and not expressed In contrast, Kochman says African Americans are likely to regard expressiveness as an attractive quality in people ~ We are all emotional beings. Part of making communication lively and interesting is ensuring that people have the space to express the emotions they feel. People are strong and quite able to handle intense expressions from others. ~ It is valuable for each person to be able to express his or her feelings; in fact, as long as expression does not cross the line to physical fighting, it is a speaker's right. It is listeners who have the responsibility of being tolerant of others' expressiveness. Similar to African Americans, many Jewish Americans also value a high-keyed, animated style, especially in discussion of issues and ideas ~ Deborah Shiffrin writes that disagreeing and arguing with people in a lively fashion is often regarded as a good way to connect with people—it is "a method of sociability." As with the other aspects of style, when people have different preferences, interaction between persons is likely to be uncomfortable and even contribute to interethnic tension

politeness positive politeness negative politeness

concerned with how people treat others a matter of situated judgements that people make about each other a judgement that will be affected by who says what to whom under what circumstances ~~~ although politeness is a judgement that will be affected by who says what to whom under what circumstances, it's useful to treat politeness as an identifiable set of language practices > this allows us to identify typical moves that generate positive and negative judgements, even if such moves do not always have their predicted effect Politeness Theories: > Brown and levison (1984): argued that in order to enter social relationships, we have to acknowledge and show awareness of someone's *face*, which is their public self-image, their sense of self, in interaction ~ We do this while trying to avoid *face threatening acts (FTAs)* ~ Speakers are always managing tension between putting forth their negative face and positive face *Negative face*: refers to our desire to be independent, have freedom of action, and not be imposed on *Positive face*: refers to our desire to be included, accepted, and liked by others In any interaction, we are (often subconsciously) trying to respect each person's face. We do this through 3 ways: 1. Negative politeness strategies (independence politeness style): Recognizing others' negative face wants > This style respects the rights of others to their own autonomy and freedom of choice How to "do" negative politeness: > Speakers can avoid imposing by emphasizing the importance of each other's time and concerns, using apologies and hesitations, or using a question to give them the opportunity to say no. > Ex. "Sorry to bother you. I couldn't possibly borrow $10 could I? I forgot my wallet." > The extent of option-giving influences the degree of politeness. In many cases, the greater the chance that the speaker offers the hearer to say 'no', the more polite > Speakers can also minimize the imposition by making it seem smaller than it is, or by adding devices like hedges that mitigate the imposition (eg "if possible", "if not too much trouble", "if it's okay") 2. Positive politeness strategies (involvement politeness style): puts a premium on recognizing others' positive face wants. Speakers using an involvement style will emphasize friendliness and building connection to others How to "do" positive politeness > Use *indirect speech acts* that demonstrate closeness and solidarity between, appealing to friendship, making other ppl feel good, and emphasizing that both speakers have a common goal > Brown and Levisnon (1987) report that one of the main types of positive politeness strategies that people use is to claim common ground by attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. > Ex. "I know you really hate parties, but please come anyway. All your favorite people will be there and it won't be as much fun without you." 3. Avoiding FTAs by not speaking at all Preferred strategies Americans use for positive and negative politeness (According to Brown & Levinson) - Americans prefer involvement strategies - By being talkative, using first names readily, and assuming that one has things in common with others, Americans work to be friendly but often come across to independence-favoring speakers as rude, disrespectful, or shallow - Conversely, nationalities that avoid chattiness, use last names and titles, and presume that parties have differences do so in order to be respectful and avoid infringements on others Politeness strategies: > the execution of these depends on the style (involvement vs. independence) - person-reference - amount of talk - dialect used - frequent speech acts - notable discourse moves - idk lol see table 8.3 slide 34

directive vocabulary

ex: "It is a requirement of this program" "My suggestion is to ask the professor" certain directive vocabularies express stronger stances of obligation or certainty than others even a lack of a word can make a sentence seem more factual (there is vs. there probably is) If someone says "climate change is happening" rather than "I argue that OR "climate change is probably happening," he is treating what he is saying as more certain and factual

extreme case formulations

extreme descriptions or assessments such as: - ever - all - none - best - least - as good as it gets - always - perfectly - brand new - absolutely In everyday talk people use these words to defend what they are saying, to counter criticisms, or to propose that an activity is not wrong because of how commonly it is done an interesting modal device Pomerantz Think about the suicide prevention center dialogue. As that excerpt illustrates, how strongly people assert a claim depends on how the conversational partner responds. Speakers frequently shift their stance if challenged

teller-recipient jointness

involves one party telling and the other acknowledging and supporting that telling > At the most minimal level, recipients will produce simple tokens of listening (hm, yea) even nonverbal practices such as eye contact and nodding are a way of participating in the story and encouraging it to continue > May also contribute responses that are more enthusiastic, such as prolonged 'oh's, small commentaries (how awful! That's incredible! Etc), or questions that probe for amplification of particulars in the story >These minimal tokens attract little or no attention themselves - they serve mainly to encourage the storyteller to carry on

long term effects of literacy practices on early schooling

literacy practices have long-term effects on early schooling. It can make or break a child. Whether or not they're prepared for the types of questions they'll be asked, and standardized tests is important. Maintown vs. Roadville vs. Trackton Roadville provides lables, features, and what-explanations and prescribes listening and performing behaviors for preschoolers, that helps them up until grade 3. But the difference here is that Roadville parents do not sustain this question asking, linking, etc. that Mainville adults do. So the children start failing after 3rd grade. By fourth grade, Roadville student achievement falls. Students are very good at following orders, being good students, adhering to school norms, and reading, but they don't do well with critical thinking/creative thought. In the upper primary grades (4th/5th) Trackton students narrative skills a rewarded. They distinguish real-life narratives from fictional stories. However, their achievement is so low up until then that it sometimes doesnt even matter.

difference between crossing and code switching

lol know this just in case Both involve going back and forth btwn ways of speaking *Crossing* involves switching btwn any ways of speaking (including different style), while *code switching* refers more specifically to the selection of language. *Crossing* highlights the loose ties between speakers and their speech, seeing language and style as resources to be employed dynamically for situated purposes in the moment, rather than as indicating prior or natural relationships.

rudeness as stance vs. style

long story short: rudeness is stance not style *Rudeness* is more often a stance that one person takes toward another for a reason in a particular context, rather than a style that characterizes the person generally. > The same indicators that lead communicators to see another as displaying a hostile stance also lead them to judge the other as having a hostile style When we refer to another as having a style, we are treating the stance that the indicators cue as a regular, reoccurring one (aka *stance accretion*) for that person. Styles and stances are tightly tied to each other > Particularly for culturally problematic qualities such as disrespect or hostility, parties will get into debates as to whether an expressive moment was an in-the-moment stance or evidence of an enduring style A hostile stance can be enacted straightforwardly or with ambiguity. The most common indicators of strong negative feelings include fast-paced, loud voices, what we hear as screaming or yelling, the use of insulting names, and cursing

style

refers to a set of speech features that are found in each other's company ~~~ "style" talk features are like friends who hang out together. The friends do not need to be around each other, but they usually are Speech styles are possessed by individuals and by groups of people > When we think about style as being chosen to accomplish particular goals, we are taking a *rhetorical view* > When we conceive of style as affected by a speaker's communities and the value these communities privilege, we are adopting a *cultural viewpoint*

Language revitalization

refers to efforts, sometimes at the community level and sometimes aided by governments and education systems, to save a local language that is threatened or dying out ~~~ Language revitalization happens worldwide and encounters varying success. > It is particularly difficult to teach languages that may be spoken by only a few members, and that have no writing system > ex: many native american languages > counter ex: Cherokee = stable, but threatened while Navajo = increasing Things that help: - financial support - community support - special schools - varieties of incentives Revitalization of Celtic languages - Manx and Cornish are being revived - Irish Gaelic and Welsh are increasing in numbers of fluent home speakers due to political status (which involves official documents, signposting, and TV programs in the language) - Scottish Gaelic has been declining, despite efforts similar to those above It is possible for a language to rise from the dead (in certain areas) - Latin: read but not spoken - Hebrew: the only language to be totally revived, and is now a national language

direct reported speech

reported speech that enacts what the other actually said indicators of direct reported speech > Pronoun form: References to self in the third person (e.g., "what he doesn't know" said about self) marks a piece of talk as direct reported speech > Intonation: Changes during quoted other's comment > Verb choice: Particular verb forms that introduce reported speech can also add subtle differences to meaning. Ex: Susie *said* blah blah VERSUS Susie *says* "blah blah". "says" tends to be taken as closer to an actual quotation than saying "went", "goes" or "was like" 'Goes' vs. 'was like': 'was like' tends to be ambiguous as to whether the person really said/thought that exact utterance at the time or not Direct reported speech is an especially useful way to manage a dilemma frequently faced by storytellers

indirect reported speech

reported speech where the gist of what was said is quoted generally

master-identity-marked styles

speakers may talk as members of their category are prone to they can exaggerate talk features that symbolize an identity linkage as a way to highlight the relevance fo that idenityt, or they may minimized those features to background that identity. communicators can also adopt talk features of idenities that are not their own to signal something about the self or other in that interactional moment ethnicity markers > remember the examples about the students at an English school and stuff Voice and gay men's style > gay men adopted higher pitches when talking about being gay than other topics (perhaps to show their pride) however, no generalization is true for all members of any community

code switching

switching from one language to another It's a way for a person to make visible master identities, such as nationality or ethnicity, that may not be inferable from a person's appearance The term code doesn't refer to the same idea as speech codes, but refers specifically to going back and forth between separate languages or distinct dialects in a systematic way that conforms to the grammar of both This is different from inserting words from one's home language or words that sound like (but don't actually exist in) the other language because one lacks fluency in the second language Part of what defines code switching is that the code switcher is fluent in both languages and uses them according to grammatical rules Just because a speaker code switches does not necessarily mean that the two languages spoken change or influence one another • In fact, code switchers tend to maintain the grammar of the two languages they use rather than blending them together, as in Spanglish • Rather than being one uniform way of speaking, Spanglish refers to the variety of informal means by which speakers draw on both languages as a resource in their day-to-day business Not only does code switching occur as ppl move from one situation to another, but it also occurs within the same situation • Ex: "Ven aca. Ven aca. Come here, you." • Function: to show ur srs • Role: Shifts in ethnolects/dialects are also code switching There's a relationship between code switching and accommodation When do we code switch, and what does it say about how we view the role of a particular language in our lives? > Especially in places where it's common to speak more than one language fluently, code switching is an ordinary part of interaction and a resource for identity work Language choice can serve important institutional functions as well > Language crossing (aka code crossing)

stance indicators

the clues used to infer what another person's situation-specific stance is They may be particular words or phrases, the choice of one speech action over another, hand and facial gestures, tone of voice, the absence of talk, and so on ~~~ In figuring out a person's stance toward a sensitive issue or toward us, we use much more than what they explicitly say (i.e. just about any aspect of communication can function as a stance indicator in a particular context) stances are inferred from multiple indicators stances are constructed by an interpreter, usually effortlessly and with little reflection, based on what the speaker conveyed intentionally and what they may have given off unintentionally.

stance

the communicative display a person makes toward an interactional other and the event, issue, or person being discussed ~~~ A speaker's expressed stance may be the same as their internal feelings, but it also may not be Stance highlights that what is available to us as interpreters is a person's communicative expression. We don't have access to others' minds and hearts, only what we see Stances are displayed toward: > Social situations (is this situation boring or interesting? Formal/casual?) > Topics (certain/uncertain, skeptical/believer) > The other (e.g. do they like me or do they seem critical?) Dubois highlights how stance-taking always involves positioning and alignment of the self to the conversational other, while at the same time making and cuing an evaluation of the person, topic, or event being talked about.

modality

the name that linguists give to those aspects of a language "having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity."

nonverbal immediacy

the set of gestures that convey liking and interest Mehrabian Indicators include: - Orienting one's body more directly toward another and leaning forward - Gazing more frequently at the other - Giving more smiles and nods - Increasing ordinary (non-hostile) touches for both vocal and gestural indicators of involvement, a relatively low frequency (or low intensity on an indicator) compared with a person's baseline use is a sign of low interest or boredom Other facial expressions also contribute to the stances we attribute to listeners > Eye rolls do not have a single meaning, but the act frequently conveys something like "there she goes again." Interestingly, facial expressions that in ordinary life we think of as negative may convey positive stances. > Ex. If a speaker were telling a story about an unpleasant event (e.g., bedbugs), a listener's frown or grimace during the telling would likely convey alignment with the speaker and her experience Although a raised eyebrow generally conveys skepticism, if it occurs during the report of an acquaintance's careless, hurtful actions, it can cue the listener's alignment with the speaker, a shared incredulity that someone would act in such a fashion.

doing relational work (another function of narratives)

the stories people tell, as way as the way they are told, build three kinds of relational stances: 1. self-presentation about being a certain person in a relationship (mother, brother, etc) 2. assuming the listener wants to hear the story 3. joint storytelling and tie-signs (ways to mark that two ppl are close) ugh

texting style

this type of style mixes ordinary written expression with several distinctive practices that attend to the desirability of being brief extends ways of writing that have been around for a long time texting styles enact and point to a texter's membership in a particular community. Ppl who regularly text and chat with each other online tend to develop unique forms of expression tat enable quick identification of words and phrases related to the topics they reference most often texting is really no different from slang > coded informally

directives

trying to get someone to do something. Three main elements to a directive (eg requests and demands)

evaluation (in narratives)

when you evaluate an event ex: "That's messed up; sick" Evaluations do not need to be uttered explicitly. Quite often a speaker will leave it up to the listener to infer what the evaluation should be by providing guidance through the way the story is told. When ppl narrate events that made them feel angry, an evaluative dimension that becomes relevant is the reasonableness of the person's anger > That is, a judgement ppl make abt their own and each other's anger - certainly in a therapy session but also in everyday exchanges - is whether or not it was reasonable > Bcuz of this, the point of anger stories is often something like "The person [the other] who triggered my anger was bad" or potentially, albeit less frequently, "I was silly, wrong, and acting unreasonably to get angry." The evaluation of the events may be stated explicitly, or it may be built into the story and conveyed through particulars that are included or omitted, as well as by the language used to describe them

modal devices

words and phrases that speakers use to modulate how possible, necessary, or generally true they regard something to be ex: You /must/ come to the party vs. you /should/ come to the party