Language & Meaning

1. Language & Meaning COM 370—Psychology of Language John R. Baldwin Illinois State University

2. American Communication What is said q “I” focus q Impolite talk q Direct talk q Assertive speech q Self-enhancing talk q Public personal questions q Expressive speech Chinese Communication What is not said “We” focus q Polite talk q Indirect talk q Hesitant speech q Self-effacing talk q Private personal questions q Reticent speech American & Chinese Communication (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)

3. 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.

4. 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

5. Lexical Choice • Words of Connection • Kuan-shi • Nunch’I • Jeito • Palanca • Semantic differences: • Amigo; close friends • Freedom • Term paper • Pragmatic differences: conflict, humor, etc...

6. Basic Concepts • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language “constructs” or creates our (social) reality http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/L14.html

7. Stances on Linguistic Relativity Steinfatt, 1989 • LR-NO: __________________ • LR-LO: ___________________ • LR-GCS: __________________ • LR-CA: ___________________

8. Basic Concepts • Bernstein Hypothesis: Social situations dictate our language • Restricted Code • Elaborated Code • Code Switching

9. Evidence for or against linguistic relativity

10. Ways of doing language research on cultural differences (Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997) • 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.

11. 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!

12. 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,?

13. Scripts, language forms, values

14. BREAK!

15. Speech Codes Theory Background Ethnography (Soc/Anth)—Dell Hymes Ethnography of Speaking/Comm Gerry Philipsen (UW) Donal Carbaugh Tamar Katriel Bradford “BJ Hall Chuck Braithwaite Kristine Fitch Mary Jane Collier? Stella Ting-Toomey

16. 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).

17. 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)

18. 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

19. Speech Codes Theory The Propositions: • Distinctive culture. . Distinctive speech code • In any community, multiple speech codes • Code  distinctive psychology, sociology, rhetoric • SCs speakers use determine how important speaking is to give meaning to action • Terms, rules, premises of SC are woven into act of speaking itself (metacomm, stories, etc.) • “Artful use of a shared code” creates conditions for “predicting, explaining, and controlling” various aspects of the form of discourse (p. 63)

20. 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…)

21. 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

22. Applications of SCTColombian, Colorado & Beyond • Columbia (Fitch, 1994) • Hierarchia: social status • Confianza: trust, connectedness • [cf. “Sal si puede” ritual] • Colorado • Saving negative face

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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 interaction strategies(Ting-Toomey, 2005)

29. Facework Conflict strategies(Ting-Toomey, 2005) I Win Dominating/ Controlling Integrating/ Collaborating Compromising Own Goals Avoiding/ Withdrawing Yielding/ Obliging I Lose You Lose You Win Other’s Goals

30. Face Content Domains (Ting-Toomey, 2005) • Autonomy face • Inclusion face • Status face • Reliability face • Competence face • Moral face

31. 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?