The Pear Story (YouTube link) is a 6-minute film, developed by Wallace Chafe in 1975. It was originally showed to various speakers of English, Japanese, Chinese, German, Greek, and Mayan. They were asked to watch the video and then describe what they saw a short while later.
Chafe was interested in how different cultures recounted narratives through their language, based on a language-less stimulus. He later published his work in 1981. (The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production can be purchased at alibris, starting at a mere $250.)
A book review by Deborah Schiffrin, originally published in Language, can be purchased for $12.00 from JSTOR, or downloaded for free by logging in through your campus library. In the review, she discusses the various contributors to the Pear Stories book (Chafe, Bernardo, Downing, Clancy, Tannen) and their respective area of study in relation to the data. She briefly goes over some of the problems with the research, but concludes that "The pear stories shows that narratives are units of discourse which are useful for exploring a variety of problems concerning the relationship of cognition, culture, and language–problems which should also be examined in narratives of personal experience told in everyday settings."
An excellent place to go to learn more about the pear stories is Mary S. Erbaugh's website, www.pearstories.org. Here she explores the value of examining narrative, elaborates on the differences between Chinese and English pear stories as well as Chinese compared with other languages (including some universal features), and provides research and teaching suggestions. Overall, a fantastic resource!
Currently, linguist, author, and blogger, Michael Erard is also featuring the pear story video on his new website, devoted to the book of the same name. At Babel No More, you can learn about his latest project, an exploration of hyperpolyglots, language superlearners, and the upper limits of linguistic ability. If you have a special language ability, you can participate in his research! Learn more about the survey here.
Another link I found, provides a list of downloadable pieces/tools related to The Pear Story, if you would like to conduct your own research.
----
I hope you've found this post interesting! I think I'm done with pears for a bit now. It's time for Saturday breakfast. Enjoy yours!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
"Wait, inflammable means flammable?"
Inspired by this post, over at Metrolingua, I did a little internet research into contronyms, also known as antagonyms, or, more properly, autantonyms. (And from what I can gather so far, these terms are all synonyms of each other.)
I found a few fun sites on the topic, and thought I'd share. It's Friday and that's a good day to keep linguistics light and enjoyable.
The Wikipedia entry for auto-antonyms (a fourth variant of the term) is surprisingly good, including coinage dates, solid examples, and Janus-word lists (No. 5 now). Like this one: here, which states that it was last updated on Jan. 1, 1999. That's a timestamp to be pretty proud of when you think about what the internet was, over a decade ago!
Also, this link, here, is fun for perusing antilogies (#6!) It gives simple explanations of each contradictory meaning, as well as a brief explanation by Bob Fradkin about the origin of enantiodromes. (Seven and are we still counting?)
I tried to come up with a few of my favorite self-antonyms. "livid" springs to mind; as does "sect/secular." Not quite the same word in that last example, but a combo that has befuddled and befriended me, falsely, for many years. There's another one, I can't remember right now, but its on the tip of my tongue (perhaps literally?)...It means "caring" or "not caring at all" and sounds like "null" or something equally sonorant+y. Wonderful clues, I know, but this is how my brain works. Anybody have ideas about the word I'm looking for? If no, then what are some of your favorites? Or anti-favorites? Do share.
Or just enjoy all the contradictions — they're everywhere.
I found a few fun sites on the topic, and thought I'd share. It's Friday and that's a good day to keep linguistics light and enjoyable.
The Wikipedia entry for auto-antonyms (a fourth variant of the term) is surprisingly good, including coinage dates, solid examples, and Janus-word lists (No. 5 now). Like this one: here, which states that it was last updated on Jan. 1, 1999. That's a timestamp to be pretty proud of when you think about what the internet was, over a decade ago!
Also, this link, here, is fun for perusing antilogies (#6!) It gives simple explanations of each contradictory meaning, as well as a brief explanation by Bob Fradkin about the origin of enantiodromes. (Seven and are we still counting?)
I tried to come up with a few of my favorite self-antonyms. "livid" springs to mind; as does "sect/secular." Not quite the same word in that last example, but a combo that has befuddled and befriended me, falsely, for many years. There's another one, I can't remember right now, but its on the tip of my tongue (perhaps literally?)...It means "caring" or "not caring at all" and sounds like "null" or something equally sonorant+y. Wonderful clues, I know, but this is how my brain works. Anybody have ideas about the word I'm looking for? If no, then what are some of your favorites? Or anti-favorites? Do share.
Or just enjoy all the contradictions — they're everywhere.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Constitution vs. Cooperation. The case of syntax and Oath of Office.
Interesting linguistic phenomenon during Barack Obama's swearing-in this morning. A few blunders (including one later in Obama's Inaugural Speech, where he states that 44 people have taken this oath previously – actually, only 43 have, since Grover Cleveland was president twice, in non-consecutive terms). This post is about the the interesting exchange between the two participants in this 43rd delivery of the Speech Act we call "Oath of Office."
The official 35-word oath is written in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution as follows:
The last 4 words "So help me God" are not part of the constitutional oath, and therefore optional. I find this interesting because this is also signaled with a change in deixis by Roberts. He asks Obama "So help you God," rather than "So help me God," a change in which Roberts is no longer requesting Obama to repeat his words, but rather asking him a direct question.
Also, more noticeable, is the syntactic fumbles by Roberts in delivering the words for Obama to repeat. The constitutional oath is worded as "faithfully execute the office..." (adverb+VP), not "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully" (VP + adverb). Both are understandable and grammatically allowable in English, but have slightly different connotations, especially when delivered in this social context. The former is expected; the latter is marked.
The delivery of the "unconstitutional" word ordering prompted Obama to momentarily pause immediately after repeating "That I will execute." He nods to Roberts, now providing him with both linguistic and paralinguistic cues to perform a repair. Roberts initially misinterprets these cues as a repair request from Obama to hear the next words as he (Roberts) initially delivered them. We see this in line #6, starting with "the off–." However, Roberts immediately realizes his (second) error, and now understands that "faithfully" was what was requested, not the remaining sentence as he had previously stated it in line #4. However, he errs again in his attempt to deliver the proper constitutional ordering. Instead of giving Obama the proper words to repeat, "faithfully execute the office of...," he misspeaks by saying, "faithfully the Pres–." He realizes this and stops himself. We're on error number three now, for those keeping track. His final repair attempt results in the end of line #6, where Roberts skips the troubling adverb+verb combo, and supplies the proper end of the sentence, sans "faithfully."
Roberts' efforts are not in vain however. Even though his repairs were further botched in the surface representations, the intent to repair was conveyed to Barack Obama.
It is not actually required by the Speech Act of oath-giving that the words are repeated verbatim, or the conversational exchange go smoothly, for the oath to be considered valid. This happens at weddings all the time, and the show does go on. The intent is understood, and the Speech Act is honored as accomplishing what it intended to accomplish.
It is important however that Obama say the oath, regardless if it was delivered to him correctly. Interestingly, he has a choice now in the manner in which to say it. He can go with the constitutional version (adverb + verb phrase), or with Roberts' version (verb phrase + adverb). The former is correct, the latter is most cooperative. He can't have both.
It is interesting to see that even at the most basic level of simple conversational exchange, we see three traits emerge in our new President: leadership, cooperation, and quick thinking under pressure. Obama understood Roberts' error and allowed him to gracefully correct himself. But when he heard Roberts' repeated failed attempts to provide the proper words, Obama took charge of the situation and spoke the necessary phrase to continue with the Speech Act. That the Speech Act go on could easily be considered the priority at this point. It is important to note that, for whatever reason, Obama carried on in a way that was the most cooperative, choosing the phrasing that would align himself with Roberts, rather than slighting him.
There are a few other interesting phenomenon going on in this simple dialogue, but I am ready to enjoy the day.
If you need more wholesome oathy goodness, here is the latest at the Inuagural Blog, from the office of our new President, Barack Obama. Also, change.gov is closing up shop and coming to the whitehouse. Dot gov.
(My sincere apologies for all the bad puns in the previous paragraph.)
---
There is a lot to look at here and we welcome any and all comments on this post. Thanks!
---
keywords not in post: critical discourse analysis, CDA, Austin, Searle, speech act theory, blunder, screwup, mistake, swear, swearing, politics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, constatives, perlocutionary, pledge, promise, amendment, felicity conditions, conversational turn, syntax, adverbial, clause, inauguration.
---
*Update: Jan. 21, 2009, 11:25 am. Upon listening to the audio again this morning, I realize that my initial transcription of the swearing-in ceremony contained an error. In line #4, Roberts actually says "to" instead of the proper word "of". I have corrected this in the transcription portion of this post, and noted the change in the reference key below it.
The official 35-word oath is written in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Here is a shallow transcription of the oath, as stated this morning (delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts to Barack Hussein Obama at 12:00 pm, January 20th, 2009):
*Brackets "[ ]" represent overlapping speech. Parenthesis represent paralinguistic cues. Periods "." represent pauses. Hyphens "–" represent truncated speech. Text in red represents a change made to the transcription (after the original post timestamp).*
- Roberts: I, Barack Hussein Obama [do solemnly swear]
- Obama: [I, Barack]
- Obama: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear.
- Roberts: That I will..execute the office of President
ofto the United States faithfully.- Obama: That I will execute... (nods to Roberts)
- Roberts: the off– faithfully the Pres– office of President [of the United States.]
- Obama: [the office of President] of the United States faithfully.
- Roberts: And will to the best of my ability.
- Obama: I will to the best of my ability.
- Roberts: Preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution of the United States.
- Obama: Preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution of the United States.
- Roberts: So help you God?
- Obama: So help me God.
- Roberts: Congratulations Mr. President.
The last 4 words "So help me God" are not part of the constitutional oath, and therefore optional. I find this interesting because this is also signaled with a change in deixis by Roberts. He asks Obama "So help you God," rather than "So help me God," a change in which Roberts is no longer requesting Obama to repeat his words, but rather asking him a direct question.
Also, more noticeable, is the syntactic fumbles by Roberts in delivering the words for Obama to repeat. The constitutional oath is worded as "faithfully execute the office..." (adverb+VP), not "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully" (VP + adverb). Both are understandable and grammatically allowable in English, but have slightly different connotations, especially when delivered in this social context. The former is expected; the latter is marked.
The delivery of the "unconstitutional" word ordering prompted Obama to momentarily pause immediately after repeating "That I will execute." He nods to Roberts, now providing him with both linguistic and paralinguistic cues to perform a repair. Roberts initially misinterprets these cues as a repair request from Obama to hear the next words as he (Roberts) initially delivered them. We see this in line #6, starting with "the off–." However, Roberts immediately realizes his (second) error, and now understands that "faithfully" was what was requested, not the remaining sentence as he had previously stated it in line #4. However, he errs again in his attempt to deliver the proper constitutional ordering. Instead of giving Obama the proper words to repeat, "faithfully execute the office of...," he misspeaks by saying, "faithfully the Pres–." He realizes this and stops himself. We're on error number three now, for those keeping track. His final repair attempt results in the end of line #6, where Roberts skips the troubling adverb+verb combo, and supplies the proper end of the sentence, sans "faithfully."
Roberts' efforts are not in vain however. Even though his repairs were further botched in the surface representations, the intent to repair was conveyed to Barack Obama.
It is not actually required by the Speech Act of oath-giving that the words are repeated verbatim, or the conversational exchange go smoothly, for the oath to be considered valid. This happens at weddings all the time, and the show does go on. The intent is understood, and the Speech Act is honored as accomplishing what it intended to accomplish.
It is important however that Obama say the oath, regardless if it was delivered to him correctly. Interestingly, he has a choice now in the manner in which to say it. He can go with the constitutional version (adverb + verb phrase), or with Roberts' version (verb phrase + adverb). The former is correct, the latter is most cooperative. He can't have both.
It is interesting to see that even at the most basic level of simple conversational exchange, we see three traits emerge in our new President: leadership, cooperation, and quick thinking under pressure. Obama understood Roberts' error and allowed him to gracefully correct himself. But when he heard Roberts' repeated failed attempts to provide the proper words, Obama took charge of the situation and spoke the necessary phrase to continue with the Speech Act. That the Speech Act go on could easily be considered the priority at this point. It is important to note that, for whatever reason, Obama carried on in a way that was the most cooperative, choosing the phrasing that would align himself with Roberts, rather than slighting him.
There are a few other interesting phenomenon going on in this simple dialogue, but I am ready to enjoy the day.
If you need more wholesome oathy goodness, here is the latest at the Inuagural Blog, from the office of our new President, Barack Obama. Also, change.gov is closing up shop and coming to the whitehouse. Dot gov.
(My sincere apologies for all the bad puns in the previous paragraph.)
---
There is a lot to look at here and we welcome any and all comments on this post. Thanks!
---
keywords not in post: critical discourse analysis, CDA, Austin, Searle, speech act theory, blunder, screwup, mistake, swear, swearing, politics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, constatives, perlocutionary, pledge, promise, amendment, felicity conditions, conversational turn, syntax, adverbial, clause, inauguration.
---
*Update: Jan. 21, 2009, 11:25 am. Upon listening to the audio again this morning, I realize that my initial transcription of the swearing-in ceremony contained an error. In line #4, Roberts actually says "to" instead of the proper word "of". I have corrected this in the transcription portion of this post, and noted the change in the reference key below it.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
LSA-Decompression Pub Night Canceled
Since many of us are kicking colds and/or overstimulated from the week of festivities at the LSA, we've decided to postpone Monday's pub night.
We'll be updating this blog soon with a new pub night date, as well as info about the upcoming semester, tidbits from the LSA, and various other things of interest.
We'll be updating this blog soon with a new pub night date, as well as info about the upcoming semester, tidbits from the LSA, and various other things of interest.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Social events and the LSA!
**** UPDATED Tuesday the 6th with pre-LSA-meeting place and time ****
Since there are quite a few of us that are volunteering and/or attending this week's LSA Meeting, it'd be great to get together and socialize, network, talk linguistics, and enjoy food and drinks!If you are attending the meeting and would like to get in on the festivities, please leave a comment on this post. You don't have to have any account to comment; you can do so anonymously (just leave your name in the post so we know who you are!)
--------
The LSA preliminary program shows that the Graduate Student Panel will take place this Friday, January 9th, from 8:00 pm – 9:30 pm. Afterwards there will be a Student Mixer from 9:30 pm — 11:30 pm.--------
If that's not enough for you, there will also be a LGSA Fledgelings pub night on Monday evening, possibly including a Pub Quiz if there's interest (click here for Mon. night Pub Quiz locations). Place and time to be determined; all suggestions welcome.
--------
And if that's STILL not enough linguistically fascinating social interaction, and you want to don your wordnerd hat early, we could meet up before the conference begins as well...say, 2:30-3:00ish at Emporio Rulli Café (map) near the Hilton Hotel View Larger Map
Directions: Emporio Rulli Caffe is very easy to get to from BART. Get off at Powell St. Station, walk up Powell st. for 4 short blocks, following the cable car tracks, past Union Square. Then take a right on Post and the Cafe will be about 1/2 way down the block on the left. It's also 4 blocks from the Hilton. Just go back down Post and take a left on Mason. The hotel is on the corner of Mason and O'Farrell. It's a glorified coffee house with light food and lots of desserts. Price range is mostly $3-10.
--------
So please comment below if you would like to attend one of these events, or if you are going to the LSA meeting and just want to let us know you'll be there. (If you don't want to comment publicly, you can always drop Heather, Noah or Kim an email at Fledgelings at gmail.com.)There is also a discussion thread about the LSA on our Google Groups Discussion Board. That is a private group, just for us to chat.
This post will be updated as event details are worked out.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting THIS WEEK!
The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) will take place this week, starting Thursday, January 8th and ending Sunday, January 9th. The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 333 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco.
Click HERE for the preliminary program, featuring speakers, times and topics.
Students who are members of the LSA can register to attend the conference on-site for $65. Non-member students can register on-site for $75. Pre-registration has already closed.
If you would like to purchase a student membership to the LSA you can sign up by clicking HERE. Student membership costs $30 and are valid through the end of this year. Also, member benefits (from their website):
"Members receive four issues of Language and are eligible to submit abstracts for the Annual LSA meetings and apply for tuition fellowships to the LSA Linguistic Institute. In addition, LSA members are now entitled to significant discounts on subscriptions to many journals of interest to linguists. There also is the intangible, but equally important, benefit that comes from knowing that membership supports the many significant educational and societal contributions of the LSA."
Hope to see you at the meeting!
Click HERE for the preliminary program, featuring speakers, times and topics.
Students who are members of the LSA can register to attend the conference on-site for $65. Non-member students can register on-site for $75. Pre-registration has already closed.
If you would like to purchase a student membership to the LSA you can sign up by clicking HERE. Student membership costs $30 and are valid through the end of this year. Also, member benefits (from their website):
"Members receive four issues of Language and are eligible to submit abstracts for the Annual LSA meetings and apply for tuition fellowships to the LSA Linguistic Institute. In addition, LSA members are now entitled to significant discounts on subscriptions to many journals of interest to linguists. There also is the intangible, but equally important, benefit that comes from knowing that membership supports the many significant educational and societal contributions of the LSA."
Hope to see you at the meeting!
Graduate Research Competition
The Twentieth Annual CSU Student Research Competition is underway! If you would like to enter your research project, paper or creative work, go to www.sfsu.edu/~gradstdy to obtain guidelines and a registration form.
The deadline for entries is February 18, 2009, and the SFSU campus competition will be held Feb 25-Mar 3, 2009. The University will provide travel funds for up to 10 campus winners to compete in the CSU-wide competition to be held May 1-2, 2009 at CSU Los Angeles.
The deadline for entries is February 18, 2009, and the SFSU campus competition will be held Feb 25-Mar 3, 2009. The University will provide travel funds for up to 10 campus winners to compete in the CSU-wide competition to be held May 1-2, 2009 at CSU Los Angeles.
2009 Linguistic Institute, July 6 - August 13, 2009
Linguistic Structure and Language Ecologies
---
Sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America
& the University of California, Berkeley
---
Linguistic Structure and Language Ecologies
---
Sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America
& the University of California, Berkeley
---
Director: Andrew Garrett (University of California, Berkeley)
Associate Director: Nick Evans (Australian National University)
---
Registration and fellowship applications will go online from these websites in January.Associate Director: Nick Evans (Australian National University)
---
The theme of the 2009 Institute is Linguistic Structure and Language Ecologies, highlighting the relation between linguistic structures and the ecologies in which they are embedded, including physical and psychological contexts, demographic and social contexts, and historical and geographic contexts.
20 six-week courses and 60 three-week courses are offered. Course listing here.
Students receive full academic credit (and all campus privileges) at the lowest per-week cost of any Linguistic Institute since 2003. Student members of the LSA may apply for fellowships that cover all tuition and fees. Information about the fellowship process.
Information about Forum and Institute lectures by Mark Baker, Stephen C. Levinson, Malcolm Ross, Natalie Schilling-Estes, Donca Steriade, and Michael Tomasello.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
