language & meaning com 370—psychology of language john r. baldwin illinois state university

Language & Meaning

COM 370—Psychology of LanguageJohn R. Baldwin

Illinois State University

American & Chinese Communication

American CommunicationWhat is said “I” focusImpolite talkDirect talkAssertive speechSelf-enhancing talkPublic personal

questionsExpressive speech

Chinese Communication What is not said “We” focusPolite talkIndirect talkHesitant speechSelf-effacing talkPrivate personal

questions Reticent speech

(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)

Levels of Language

• Phonemic: /th/ /r/ /ö/ • Morphological: Adam/s/; particles: “ma”• Semantic/Lexical: “babe,” “amigo”• Syntactic: Imperfect v. preterite; future

subjectunctive• Pragmatic: Asking a Q; persuading• Rhetorical/ideological: Underlying ideas,

nature of “communication,” etc.

Morphological Differences

• Greek nouns: http://abacus.bates.edu/~hwalker/Grammar/gramrev.html• Conjugating verbs: Pick a language:

http://www.logosconjugator.org/owa-v/verba_dba.verba_main.create_page?lang=en

• Check out SIUs South East Language page! http://www.seasite.niu.edu/ • Tones?: http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/perfectpitch.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X25lLdXeSUo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlw4NJdnNE

• Clicks?: http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/perfectpitch.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_l7ty_MH_Y

Some tonal humor… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gKqjd00E4

Lexical Choice

• Words of Connection– Kuan-shi– Nunch’I– Jeito– Palanca

• Semantic differences:– Amigo; close friends– Freedom– Term paper

• Pragmatic differences: conflict, humor, etc...

Basic Concepts

• Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language “constructs” or creates our (social) reality

http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/L14.html

Stances on Linguistic Relativity

• LR-NO: __________________

• LR-LO: ___________________

• LR-GCS: __________________

• LR-CA: ___________________

Steinfatt, 1989

Basic Concepts

• Bernstein Hypothesis: Social situations dictate our language– Restricted Code

– Elaborated Code

– Code Switching

Evidence for or against linguistic relativity

Area of Research For? Against?

Language Development

Language comparison (interlanguage)

Dialects, etc. (Intra-language)• deficit explanation• difference explanation

Bilingualism

Aphasics• Rule of Ribot

Deaf languages

Ways of doing language research on cultural differences

• Ethnography of Communication: _____________

• Contrastive pragmatics– Grice– Politeness– Speech Acts, etc.

• “Culture” studies (not “cultural studies”)

• Cultural scripts approach: – Why do Goddard & Wierzbicka like this approach?– Key words: PEOPLE, SOMEONE, THIS, SAY, THINK,

WANT, GOOD, BAD, etc.

(Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997)

Example of a Cultural Script

• If something bad happens to someone because of me

• I have to say something like this to the person: “I feel something bad because of this.”

Not an apology, because the speaker may or may not be responsible for the bad thing!

Scripts, language forms, & values

What are some scripts or language forms for each of the following groups? What underlying values do they suggest?

Compare and contrast!

How might such differences cause difficulty in intercultural communication, negotiations, public relations or media work,?

Scripts, language forms, values

Form Underlying Value

Japanese

Malay

Polish

Yakunytjatjara

Ewe

BREAK!

Speech Codes Theory

Background

Ethnography (Soc/Anth)—Dell Hymes

Ethnography of Speaking/Comm

Gerry Philipsen (UW)

Donal Carbaugh

Chuck Braithwaite Kristine Fitch

Bradford “BJ HallTamar Katriel

Mary Jane Collier? Stella Ting-Toomey

Speech Codes theory(Philipsen, Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005)

• Background– Grounded in “observation of communication

conduct” (p. 56)– A way to use “situated codes and meanings” to

decipher everyday communication conduct– Goal to develop a specific understanding of each

culture, with assumption that each culture is unique

– Goal to develop a framework that can be used to apply to any culture, even to compare cultures, in regards to a particular speech genre (Philipsen, 1989).

Speech Codes theory(Philipsen, Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005)

• Speech codes:– “a system of socially constructed symbols and

meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicitave conduct” (Philipsen, in PCR, p. 57)

• Symbolic (situated) resources:– “Symbols and meanings, premises, and rules,

pertaining to communicative conduct—that participants use to name, interpret, and judge communicative conduct.” Resources “to eanct, name, interpret, and judge communicative conduct” (p. 57). That is…

• Codes: contingent (not fixed); open (not closed)

Speech Codes Theory

Speech codes involve/result/create:• Psychology of culture: meanings

• Sociology of culture: social relations

• Rhetoric of culture: strategic conduct

In sum, – Meaning of messages relies fundamentally on

codes– Speech codes are located in language and

communication of native speakers– Speech codes can be used to understand, predict,

and control communication– Speech codes enact certain identities

Speech Codes Theory

The Propositions:1. Distinctive culture. . Distinctive speech code

2. In any community, multiple speech codes

3. Code distinctive psychology, sociology, rhetoric

4. SCs speakers use determine how important speaking is to give meaning to action

5. Terms, rules, premises of SC are woven into act of speaking itself (metacomm, stories, etc.)

6. “Artful use of a shared code” creates conditions for “predicting, explaining, and controlling” various aspects of the form of discourse (p. 63)

Speech Codes Theory

The “Descriptive Model”:

Scene: when, where…

Participants: who…

Ends: why…

Act sequence: what order…

Key: feeling

Instrumentalities: channel, register

Norms: how

Genre: what (joke, conversation,

leave-taking, requests, instructions…)

Applications of SCTEgyptian & Jewish Comm

• Dugri & Musayra (Ellis & Maoz, 2003)– JEWISH ISRAELI: Dugri (Katriel, 1986):

• “Straight talk”: Direct, to the point

• Assertive

• Concerned with clarity, efficiency, image of directness

• In-group code among Western Israeli Jews

– ARABIC: Musayra (Feghali, 1997):“Accommodating, going along with”: 4 aspects

• Repetition: formulaic, compliments, praise, paralellism

• Indirectness: Interpersonal caution

• Elaboration: metaphor, exaggeration

• Affectiveness: intuitive and emotional style

Applications of SCTColombian, Colorado & Beyond

• Columbia (Fitch, 1994)– Hierarchia: social status– Confianza: trust, connectedness– [cf. “Sal si puede” ritual]

• Colorado – Saving negative face

Application: Public “Problem” Talk & Donahue

• New York Hardcore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfoVyTnz0g

• The Dangers of Moshing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47TWt3vi9hc

Face negotiation theory (of conflict) (Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Background: Goffman– Face: “about identity respect and other-identity

consideration issues within and beyond the actual encounter episode” (p. 73)

– Can be “threatened, enhanced, undermined, and bargained over—on both an emotional reactive level and a cognitive appraisal level” (p. 73)

• Brown & Levinson – Positive and negative face– Self and other face– Positive and negative politeness

Face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Background: Facework“the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors that we

engage in to maintain or restore face loss and to uphold and honor face gain”

• Face loss

• FTAs

• Preventative and

restorative facework

Face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Assumptions (summarized)– People in all cultures negotiate face

– Some situations especially threaten face

– Cultural variable differences influence aspects of face negotiation

– Individual differences also influence face

Face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Aspects of face that might be influenced:– Face orientation

(self/other/both)– Face movements

(defended, saved, maintained, upgraded)

– Facework interaction strategies (V/NV—direct/indirect)

– Conflict communication styles

– Face content domains (positive/negative)

Facework interaction strategies(Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Preventative Facework– Credentialing

– Suspended judgment appeals

– Pre-disclosure

– Pre-apology

– Hedging

– Disclaimer

– …

• Restorative Facework– Direct aggression

– Excuses

– Justifications

– Humor

– Physical remediation

– Passive aggressiveness

– Avoidance

– Apologies

– …

Facework Conflict strategies(Ting-Toomey, 2005)

Ow

n G

oals

Other’s Goals

I Win

You Lose You Win

I Lose

Dominating/

Controlling

Avoiding/ Withdrawing

Yielding/ Obliging

Compromising

Integrating/

Collaborating

Face Content Domains (Ting-Toomey, 2005)

• Autonomy face• Inclusion face• Status face• Reliability face• Competence face• Moral face

Lets Make Some (facework) Predictions!

• Culture-level variables– Individualism/collectivism– Power distance

• Individual-level variables– Self-construal

• Independent/dependent• Biconstrual/ambivalent

• Relational-contextual variables– In-group/out-group

• Other important variables?