So my friends Fred & Seth are from Ghana. They worked with the stock market in Tokyo when I lived there and were deacons in an international church. There is a lot of racial prejudice in Japan, as there is in the U.S. My Ghanaian friends experienced a lot of hateful treatment while they were there. All of our experiences color our schema and our Pragmatic Expectancy Grammar (Oller 1979)-- when we encounter a sign that looks like one we know, we automatically attribute the meaning that we know to that sign--normalizing in the direction of known schema as Bartlett (1932) says.
There has to be a certain amount of everyday information that has become part of our assumptions so that we don't have to check every chair, for example, to make sure it will hold us, check behind doors to make sure they're real doors and don't just open up to a brick wall, respond to a wave with a wave instead of interpreting it as someone's malicious desire to erase you. :) So we can't dispose with assumptions altogether. But if we had enough schema to anticipate likely or possible divergences from our own, we could recalibrate at potential hot spots and have more control over our interactions and over executing our interactional goals.
The gesture that beckons someone to you in Asia looks kind of like a Western wave, but a lot more like a "shoo, get out of here" gesture with the arm extended the hand facing down and all four fingers moving towards the user and away repetitively. In Ghana it is used only for shooing animals away. So when they approached a little old Japanese lady at her newstand on the street she beckoned to them with this gesture, inviting them to come over, but of course not having schema yet for this gesture, they thought they were being 'shooed' away, like animals.
It's exactly the kind of situation that drives the movie Crash. Misunderstandings caused by years of bad experiences and schema that miscues to the individual that this situation is yet another example of what we have come to expect from 'those people' in this context. And these misunderstandings keep accruing, building more and more ill will. If somehow we could become aware of these hot spots in current inter-group interaction, developing schema for the schema of others, we could start tearing down some of the walls which may have once been the product of true ill will among people before us, but so much of which are now the product of only imagined messages.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Pragmatic Homonymy and Polysemy: Bedrock of 307
Basically this whole class and all of communication hinges on the problem of making sure that the signs you are using are being received by your addressee in the way that you intended them. When this is successful, you have achieved a high degree of intersubjectivity.
The beauty of the arbitrary nature of language is also the bane of communication-- any sign can represent any meaning. Unfortunately (?), it can only do so through the process of a convention--the agreement of two or more people that a given sign refers to the same meaning (thing, idea, verb, whatever).
The arbitrary nature of semiotics (all modalities of human communication, the system of symbols) means that a given sign (word, gesture, intonational contour, etc) can have an infinite number of different meanings applied to it by people across the world and centuries.
When a sign has two (or more) meanings it is pragmatically homonymous. When you and your hearer share schema for said sign, you can anticipate that it will be understood as you intended it. The problem is that schema is invisible and you can't stop at every word or utterance to ask, Do you know what I mean by 'ho'? Do you realize I am using the word 'bitch' to indicate that you are one of my best friends?? Moreover, any semiotic/utterance etc can have more than one meaning SIMULTANEOUSLY. In the example from Out of Africa, the word baroness served several functions at the same time. That is the polysemy of language.
There is not world enough or time to spell out every single thing you mean (defining each word for your hearer as you go). Most of the time you have to speak out in faith that the other person shares the required schema for understanding you rightly. This is also why we tend to spend most of our time with people who do share most of our schema--we are comfortable with them and don't have to be on our guard all the time for misunderstandings. They will still happen, but they will be far less frequent. It is a good argument for staying in your hometown all your life.
It takes a lot of energy to move to a new place and learn a new set of semiotics, a whole new schema for communication norms in that community, be it another region in the U.S. or a whole nuther country and language. :) If you have schema for schema and for the universals of positive and negative face needs, you will do a thousand times better than if you keep trying to just translate every word and action you normally would use in English into that other language. There are many things you say in English that no one would Ever say in that Other culture. This takes us to Pete Becker's notion of exuberances and deficiencies-- any translation of a word will simultaneously say a little more and a little less than the word you are translating. You have to stay on your toes to make sure this doesn't result in a troublesome misunderstanding.
The beauty of the arbitrary nature of language is also the bane of communication-- any sign can represent any meaning. Unfortunately (?), it can only do so through the process of a convention--the agreement of two or more people that a given sign refers to the same meaning (thing, idea, verb, whatever).
The arbitrary nature of semiotics (all modalities of human communication, the system of symbols) means that a given sign (word, gesture, intonational contour, etc) can have an infinite number of different meanings applied to it by people across the world and centuries.
When a sign has two (or more) meanings it is pragmatically homonymous. When you and your hearer share schema for said sign, you can anticipate that it will be understood as you intended it. The problem is that schema is invisible and you can't stop at every word or utterance to ask, Do you know what I mean by 'ho'? Do you realize I am using the word 'bitch' to indicate that you are one of my best friends?? Moreover, any semiotic/utterance etc can have more than one meaning SIMULTANEOUSLY. In the example from Out of Africa, the word baroness served several functions at the same time. That is the polysemy of language.
There is not world enough or time to spell out every single thing you mean (defining each word for your hearer as you go). Most of the time you have to speak out in faith that the other person shares the required schema for understanding you rightly. This is also why we tend to spend most of our time with people who do share most of our schema--we are comfortable with them and don't have to be on our guard all the time for misunderstandings. They will still happen, but they will be far less frequent. It is a good argument for staying in your hometown all your life.
It takes a lot of energy to move to a new place and learn a new set of semiotics, a whole new schema for communication norms in that community, be it another region in the U.S. or a whole nuther country and language. :) If you have schema for schema and for the universals of positive and negative face needs, you will do a thousand times better than if you keep trying to just translate every word and action you normally would use in English into that other language. There are many things you say in English that no one would Ever say in that Other culture. This takes us to Pete Becker's notion of exuberances and deficiencies-- any translation of a word will simultaneously say a little more and a little less than the word you are translating. You have to stay on your toes to make sure this doesn't result in a troublesome misunderstanding.
About the uninvited guests
Points from the example of me inviting Asian students to my home for dinner-
- My negative face was violated when more people than I had invited showed up and no one called me to see if it was ok first. They were more concerned about the positive faces of their friends who would have to stay behind in the dorm.
- One student asked for seconds. Normally we wait until we are offered seconds. I was especially irritated because I didn't have enough food for everyone now that the group was so much larger. My negative face violated again. He was undoubtedly appealing to positive face, solidarity in demonstrating his enthusiasm for the food.
- My cherry pie was rejected as too sweet. My positive face was violated. I should have acquired more schema about that given the number of years I'd interacted with Asians in Japan and Chicago. I violated their negative faces by presenting them with a food they would not enjoy and putting them in the position of rejecting it.
- Considering how little money I had at the time but had sacrificed in order to host them only to then have them bring uninvited guests that I couldn't provide for, I was livid when, after they had finished eating, someone said, Let's order pizza! Now they were saying from an American perspective, Your offering was insufficient. A huge slap in my negative face. As my Korean roommate later explained, however, it could be seen as a solidarity move that said, We're enjoying our time together and you have spent time and money for us and we want to continue enjoying time together and now we will help with the expense and not requiring anymore cooking from you.
- Fortunately I didn't yell at them or anything and felt much better about the whole affair when my insightful roommate/informant helped to 'translate' their behavior for me.
- MORAL OF THE STORY: It is always safest to assume the other person is being polite according to the rules they know, until you can verify through other native speakers of that language/culture, that in fact, even in their own culture that behavior is rude.
presentations of diagnostics
Kudos to Liz's group for bravely going where no group had gone before and helping me to improve the specs.
1) Bring a handout for everyone! (the final write up that you turn in on CD is not your presentation)
2) Don't put too many words on a powerpoint slide because it's impossible/very difficult to process and/or stay focused
3) Only use interview video snippets if
4) Tell us at the beginning what you did for your diagnostic. Without this we have no schema for understanding/appreciating the rest of your presentation. What were you looking for, who did you include in your study, etc.
5) When you do your individual lines about what you liked best etc., BE CONCRETE. That would be the whole point of the class! If you just say something like, They value family more than we do, I will become violent. That doesn't tell us anything! What concrete behaviors are you talking about or concrete contexts for behaviors with concrete interactional functions that you can prove are not the norm in the U.S. ???? Touching the mother in law's feet is an excellent example of a concrete statement.
6) It would be better for you to have a video snippit of each member saying their sentences aloud than to have them printed out word for word on the screen. You could have it in subtitles though, accompanying the video snippit, which would probably enhance clarity.
7) When you finish, tell us what you think your diagnostic demonstrated--what did you conclude? You don't need extensive statistics, but it would be very helpful if you would point out something like 25 out of 30 Americans thought the people in the scene were being appropriately respectful to the appropriate other participants. Don't go crazy but a chart or something would be very helpful here.
And I remind you: Each beautiful sentence should be a work of art (and heart, hopefully).
1) Bring a handout for everyone! (the final write up that you turn in on CD is not your presentation)
2) Don't put too many words on a powerpoint slide because it's impossible/very difficult to process and/or stay focused
3) Only use interview video snippets if
- they're going to say something you really need to say
- they're easy to understand
- they're really concise and to the point
- you provide subtitles
4) Tell us at the beginning what you did for your diagnostic. Without this we have no schema for understanding/appreciating the rest of your presentation. What were you looking for, who did you include in your study, etc.
5) When you do your individual lines about what you liked best etc., BE CONCRETE. That would be the whole point of the class! If you just say something like, They value family more than we do, I will become violent. That doesn't tell us anything! What concrete behaviors are you talking about or concrete contexts for behaviors with concrete interactional functions that you can prove are not the norm in the U.S. ???? Touching the mother in law's feet is an excellent example of a concrete statement.
6) It would be better for you to have a video snippit of each member saying their sentences aloud than to have them printed out word for word on the screen. You could have it in subtitles though, accompanying the video snippit, which would probably enhance clarity.
7) When you finish, tell us what you think your diagnostic demonstrated--what did you conclude? You don't need extensive statistics, but it would be very helpful if you would point out something like 25 out of 30 Americans thought the people in the scene were being appropriately respectful to the appropriate other participants. Don't go crazy but a chart or something would be very helpful here.
And I remind you: Each beautiful sentence should be a work of art (and heart, hopefully).
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Structuring Your (Final) Diagnostic Presentations
Provide a bulleted handout and either a powerpoint or a video or some combination of thereof.
1) Begin by reminding us what your target culture is and who your informant is (basic age, gender, occupation, etc.) 2 sentences total!
2) What aspect of their culture did you find the most different/foreign from your own? Each member, 1-2 sentences!
3) What aspect was your favorite and/or you wish you could get Americans to adopt? 1 sentence per member
4) What aspect emerged in your interviews that you think would be the most difficult for Americans to adjust to? 1 sentence per member!
5) What aspect did you problematize in developing your diagnostic? In other words, what was it that you felt you needed to know more about in order to better understand the underlying system of the culture in this aspect. 3-5 sentences total!
6) How did you design and implement your diagnostic? Meaning, what did you do in order find out what you needed to about the problematic aspect of both cultures--show photos, video clips, sound clips, Garfinkeling, etc. 3-5 sentences total!
7) Show us whatever you showed your subject/informants. 2-3 sentences per member, tops!
8) Tell us what you learned about the Americans. 2-3 sentences per member, tops!
9) Tell us what you learned about the Americans. 2-3 sentences per member, tops!
10) Give us recommendations about contextualization cues, frames, scripts, adjacency pairs, etc. that are key to understanding the system for Americans wanting to communicate smoothly in your target culture as 'beautiful Americans.' 2-3 sentences per member, tops!
You should be be able to do this in 10 minutes, tops. Each beautiful sentence should be a work of art (and heart, hopefully).
Focusing Diagnostic Goals
Keep in mind your goals and the incorporation of the course material in your work.
You have set out to identify important principles in your target culture that will help you and others to understand the underlying system regarding this aspect of their culture as differentiated from your own culture.
1) How are various forms being used differently by your culture and theirs? (Pragmatic homonymy and polysemy ala Tannen)
2) What contextualization cues seem to be miscuing Americans in the target culture for a different definition of the situation that trigger scripts from their own culture that don't 'translate' and vice versa (how is the informant miscued by American behavior in the U.S.)?
3) What are/would be the social consequences of erroneously acting out your own culture's script for that situation? Are we talking about vague confusion or discomfort, or about deal-breaking, game changing consequences? Discomfort or disaster? You might think about such cultural gaffs in terms of how 'expensive' they are in relationship to the individual's interactional goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
