Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
anthro374 test 3
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Language socialization: | When we learn language, we learn how to -Interact - become a person - be a part of a community |
| Language ideology | How a community thinks about language shapes how they use it. Ideas you have about language, mostly for making statements?harm people– sacred, magical?plain or poetic? Is speaking a certain way dumb or poetic? formal talk sophisticated or pretentious? |
| USA | (privacy) expect multiple interpretations. Purpose of talk to refer to things, to name objects, to make statements. |
| Kaluli | (one large room) talk is for getting things. Purpose of talk normally is a means of manipulation and appeal. |
| Samoa | (no privacy) expect aggressive language from low ranks. Utterances should have a single meaning. Indirect form of speaking. |
| Theory of person | how a community thinks about people shapes how they use language |
| USA: theory of person | assume the child has intentions. Infant is an addressee; actions are meaningful. |
| Kaluli theory of person | avoid inputting intentionality to anyone. Babies have no understanding– are not speech partners. |
| Samoa theory of person | all people ranked in hierarchy. Kids defiant and angry– not addressed. Higher you’re ranked, the more detached you are. |
| Prototypical talk: in USA vs Kaluli vs Samoa | USA: dyadic. Kaluli: groups. Samoa: hierarchical. |
| Breeching experiment | breeching a norm to see how people react. (library experiment) |
| Sense of appropriateness | how you speak is effected by social relations, pragmatics, and context. It is a cultural skill, not universal. |
| Language & Culture | society/culture shape how you learn language and effective use of it is necessary to be a competent member of society. |
| Pronouns | indexical. Meaning depends on who’s speaking when and to who. Deictics that serve as shifters. (pronouns part of a structured system through which society organizes and assigns value–identity, gender, relational rules) Include/Exclude. |
| Deixis: | linguistic pointing. Built into grammar to anchor speech to context. How language indexes the event of speaking. |
| deixis examples | Previous Discourse: this, that, those. Person: I, you, we. Place: here, there. Time: now, today, tomorrow. |
| Index VS Deixis: | Index: any sign with direct connection of what it refers to. Deixis: grammaticalized type of index that depends on speech event. Narrower. Subset of indexicality. |
| Pragmatic Icon | use of language mirrors or diagrams a social relationship |
| Pragmatic Icon of Deference | distancing addressee outside of conversation. |
| Pragmatic Icon of Social Standing | plurality- royal “we” |
| Brown and Gilman | Tu and Vous choices index intimacy and power difference. Person of higher standing can initiate a shift. (employer/employee) |
| Quakers | Quakers refusing hierarchy, they only used the T form- thou. This was seen as radical and people stopped using it. Thou turned into the marked term. |
| "it" | no longer used for humans, even for animals. |
| 3rd person pronouns | exclusion, depersonalization. Srinivasan taking offense. |
| Illeism | referring to yourself in the 3rd person. (Trump, Nixon) Can be self-aggrandizing. |
| Srinivasan | pronouns confirm and deny identity & can be studied as structuralist value system. Political stakes of gender and pronouns. Binaries are prone to markedness relations. Looking to eliminate inequality here, and eliminate gender distinction altogether. |
| Minus and Zero interpretations of "He" | Minus: “He” after he invented fire, man could cook. Zero: “He” he grew a beard. “She” she gave birth. |
| Srinivasan issues | missing word. English lacks a gender neutral singular pronoun. Generic “he” sets men at default– no! |
| Srinivasan politics | pronouns distribute recognition– who counts as a full person? Pronouns never neutral– index and reproduce social hierarchies, but can also transform them. |
| Worthiness Doctrine | 18th c. grammar books justified markedness relations. Masculine gender “more worthy” than feminine. Masculine person answers to a general name, which comprehends both male and female. |
| Zero and Minus ints. of He: Selectivity in language ideology among marked terms: 19th c. England | Zero: “He” includes women when it comes to taxes, fines, incarceration Minus: “He” only refers to men when it comes to voting. |
| consequences of this selectivity of He | proves political position (unnatural for women to vote) women can’t be/do certain things (A lawyer must pass the Bar before he can practice) |
| Pragmatics of non-binary pronouns: | Used in reference, not address Depend on someone other than you to use the word Using the word is indexical of something about the speaker |
| Goffman | interested in ordinary everyday interaction between ordinary people. Interested in Pragmatics– what signs mean to someone. |
| Structuralist Value | word meanings divide up the world in different ways. (Mutton vs Sheep) |
| Goffman’s Social Situation | full physical area in which people present are in sight and sound of one another. who can see&hear each other&are engaged in conversation. (Srinivasan hearing herself referred to as “she” means she isn’t included in convo, even if she is standing there) |
| Goffman’s Footing: | alignment we take toward what we or others are saying. How we locate ourself in the conversation. change of footing indicates change in alignment towards ourselves and others. Projection across a strip of behavior. Code switching. |
| footing cont. | My footing is my way of framing the things i say; when i do that, i say something about myself; i set up my alignment. Framing, the roles are take in the convo, and the kind of person I want you to see me as. |
| Footing in Nixon example | him&Helen Thomas– he shifts footing after formal meeting, removes her from social sit. pres/reporter to mid age man/young fem He has framed it as joking . Meta-communication→ he gave himself deniability. (trolling on social media→ just kidding around) |
| Competence | knowing how to use frames. (War on Worlds) Goffman says we are sensitive in these shifts in how we refer to ourselves and others. |
| Code Switching | from English to Spanish. From serious to joking. From slang to formal. From addressing a group vs an individual. |
| Goffman’s ratified participant | the social slot within which listening takes place. Could talk at any minute. |
| Goffman’s overhearers | hear it, but not a participant. |
| Speaker: | principal, author, animator |
| Principal | person who takes responsibility for what is said |
| Author | person who formulates the words |
| Animator | person who says the words |
| Example: Professor quoting novel | Prof is animator, not author→ Toni Morrison, maybe. The character in the novel may be the principal. |
| sign language interpreter and speaker | Two animators in play |
| Ways to Disavow Responsibility for your Words: “That’s not what I said” | I am not the person who is committed to the meaning of those words (principal) Those are not my own words (but they do express my intention) (author) Those are not the words I uttered (you misheard me) (animator) |
| Goffman’s Coordiated Task Activity | a presumed common interest in effectively pursuing the activity at hand… is the contextual matric which renders many utterances, especially brief ones, meaningful. |
| Manning’s Barista Conversations | buying distinction. The correct reference is indexical of your savvy sensability. By showing you know the system of distinctions of commodities, you lay claim to the prestigious properties associated with that system. |
| Triangle with starbucks stuff sense, sign vehicle, referent | Sense: coffee savvy. Sign vehicle: half-caf-double-breve-latte. Referent: the coffee. |
| what are the barista rants really about? | language ideologies |
| language ideologies of the barista convos with customers | Prototypical talk: implicit idea that something normatively preferable about sociable talk between peers as a model for talk in general. Good talk = talk between equals. |
| Baristas have basic assumptions about how conversations should go, but | language and use of language doesn’t make it go as they thought. |
| It's not peer to peer, and can never be. | Baristas have the language knowledge and expertise, but the customers are always right…but they are social equals?!?!?!?!!? |
| baristas stress peer to peer. ideal customer: | Someone who knows coffee Sophisticated customer is a connoisseur |
| what part of the triangle does Starbucks make difficult | Starbucks makes the sign vehicle complicated. “Just say what it is!!!” … idk how! |
| Conflicting language ideologies imply | conflicting social roles |
| Language as status display→ | customer is connoisseur |
| Language as technical instrument→ | barista is skilled labor |
| Language as service encounter→ | customer is always right |
| Language as egalitarian exchange→ | barista and customer are peers |
| The barista rants and norms | portray norms being broken |
| language ideology of barista rants | Reflect norms and values about how we should talk to each other |
| theory of person of barista rants | Reflect norms and values about person and social relations |
| Anxieties of reference | some customers see correction as a threat, anxieties about how to order already present, issue is no longer technical, but normative |
Created by:
maddierw