Thursday, January 13, 2005

today's anthro class

cultural n linguistics anthropology - my top anticipated lecture continued into a further state of complexity. a summary of key points not yet fully digested today

1. three signs of language: arbitrary, iconic and indexcial
2. on communication & conversation
3. syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic

elaborations on some of the interesting concepts.
arbitrary
no close relation whatsoever, association by the signification of language. like the word 'book', you're taught to accept that book=stacks of written papper compiled n bundled together. that's arbitrary.
an example of arbitrary symbol would be, say the traffic light. red=stop, green=go. Who says so? it's cultural. you learnt it. and that green n red symbol is in itself ARBITRARY coz it has no connection with traffic rules in its own right.

iconic
shows you the exact object, what it is. the shape, the look. a direct image. for example, a photo of George W. Bush, or Charlize Theron.

indexical
do NOT resemble the objects they infer but its shape will give u a direct IDEA
eg. most company logos. for example, a red rounded 'TICK' that = NIKE , or a skeleton head on a bottle that = POISON!! that sort of thing

These terms can get tricky though if u argue about the contexts. For example, the photo of George W. Bush taken as he is, is undoubtedly ICONIC. but judging from the shitty situation he's in, i guess u can argue his photo is also INDEXICAL. = shitty U.S. government, stupidity all sorts of things. and similarly, photo of osama bin laden can give u the idea of 'terrorism', 'Islam' etc.

communication & conversation
a term called 'back channel', refers to 'uhuh, mhmm, yeah, okay', common phrases we use in conversations to indicate that the speaker MAY carry on with his speech, but is NOT a confirmative message that the conversation won't be disrupted due to lack of interest or attention.

in animal kingdom, teeth baring is common. they have canines obviously, we don't. and probably rows of serrated knife like cutters if u poke ur head into a crocodile's mouth. so teeth-baring is a highly effective signal that says 'shut up/stop/freeze!'. imagine your listener flashes his teeth in the middle of a conversation, you'll stop dead whatever you're speaking obviously. but then you'll start thinking 'what the heck's wrong with him?'

report speech vs. rapport speech
report-matter of fact, stating the truth, could appear 'insensitive, arrogant'
rapport- trying to be mild, on agreeable terms, even if it's not the truth. on the good ground not to hurt others' feelings. called 'hypocrites' 'bores' by those who support report speech
am i report or rapport? varies.

rising intonation in northern american speech, a trait most observable in females
haha, hit right on! the most bizarre n funny thing i noticed is the rising intonation in canadian accent. (not to mention how they pronounce 'out' as 'oat', about/aboat...)

Hi, have u had lunch yet? you know, the menu today's really good? like they've got bacon? sausage? deserts? You know how i love deserts? like i can't get enough of them?

where they could have just lowered their tones to a humble comma or fullstop. but they don't.
studies show females use rising intonations more often when conversing with males. lack of insecurity is the suggested explanation.

whatever. it's FUNNY.
eg. given by prof
hey i went to the cinema? the film's really good? and it's really cheap? like only 8 dollars? coz it's in the afternoon?

and here's a paper on 4 funny features of TORONTO ENGLISH
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/253/253tso97.html
ikalmar, full name Ian Kalmar, is our current anthropology lecturer...
anway, the study of rising intonation on supposedly declarative statements is still in its hypothesis stage i guess.

and this famous person called Noam Chomsky, who introduced the concept of competence vs. performance in linguistic studies
http://www.unibas.ch/LIlab/staff/tenhacken/language-acquisition/W1_Introduction.pdf

official website of Noam Chomsky: http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm

ahhhhhhhh, linguists can REALLY make u MAD. and so are SCIENTISTS



No comments: