Only $35.99/year

ling, one o one

Terms in this set (42)

We have words like businessman and mailman that only identify males ( I dont have anything to add if anyone can help) *I remember Spike saying something about men calling each other "pussy" or "bitch" was equating them to females, which is aimed to insult.
I think it has to do with our society using gender pronouns such as he or her rather than their or his/her.
This also has to do with the fact that we used to use male pronouns if there was one male in the room even if there was 30 woman or more also in the room.
Engineer is a job that is assumed to be done by a man in our society. The use of terms like, lady engineer, express a males perspective/ideology.
Words like actor, poet, man(kind), host, etc. have all become relatively neutral in our society, however, each of these are historically male gendered terms. Additionally, female words are often pejorative compared to the male equivalent, if a male equivalent exists at all (knight vs. wench, sir vs. madame, master vs. mistress, buddy vs. sissy, princess, queen, bitch, spinster, words ending in -ette)
There is asymmetry in the language concerning males and females:
amelioration of male terms (connotation of becoming better) vs pejoration of female terms (connotation of becoming worse): good examples above, as well as governor vs governess, sir vs madam, male counterparts to princess, queen, spinster are prince, king, bachelor (no negative connotations there).
Asymmetry in insults: bitch vs son of a bitch or bastard (which still has to do with a female), etc
Knight and Wench
Mankind- Humankind
Master and Mistress
Rice University Cheers (Use of male terms to be assertive and get a point across about winning).
...
Dominant groups have ethnicities, but in that group, they do not take into account that they are ethnic. Ethnic is given the connotation of being "foreign" or marked. This classification is not usually defined in that dominant society because since it is a "norm" people dont feel the need to debate it. Ethnicity can be changed, but it is not always a desirable change. Since language can be an indicator of ethnicity, many dominant societies try to change language. Such as in the United States where English is the dominant language. However, there are many languages spoken in the US. People who do not speak English in the US are often viewed as inferior and a threat to the English language, but since English is so dominant, this diversity doesn't actually harm English because of the opportunities the language offers speakers. Dominant ethnicity (as ironic as that sounds) often times tries to belittle other ethnicities with racist behavior (LSP 120). Authenticity is ... (LSP 124)
guess: No one person in particular can declare someones ethnic authenticity, however dominant groups can validate identities based on... ect... Sooo no one can? or many people can? It depends how you look at it... Examples help. Is one more right than the other?

Many different people have the power to decide what your ethnicity is. Dominant groups can validate or invalidate your identity based on language, skin color, cultural beliefs and practices, etc. When you claim to be a certain ethnicity, the group you claim to belong to can choose whether or not to accept you as a member and therefore authenticate your claim. Additionally, anyone you interact with can judge the validity of your ethnicity. While it's possible to change ethnicity, it can be very difficult because so many parties must validate your claim before you will be accepted. This does not, however, prevent you from maintaining your claim. For example, if a white female claims that she belongs to a Chinese ethnic group, she will have to prove this claim and be accepted by the Chinese group in order for others to consider her "Chinese." Even if none of these things happen, there is nothing preventing this woman from believing and/or knowing that that is her ethnicity (it will just be more difficult and inauthentic to the outside world).
...
Pidgins evolved when 2 groups that spoke different languages formed a common language understood by both with no grammar as a way of trading things. Pidgins have no grammar. A creole formed from this happens when grammar and structure is added, the creole then becomes a form of standard language and becomes the children's native language. (I dont know how a language is created if anyone wants to help me out)

Pidgins usually result from contact between multiple languages (more than 2). A pidgin is 5no body's native languages, is usually used by two groups of people in contact, may use aspects of contact groups' languages but is not either language, sometimes used for trade/business, usually begin from contact due to slave labor, develop slowly over time, have no grammar (only vocabulary), and sometimes develop into creoles. When a pidgin becomes the native language of a generation, a grammatical element is added and the language becomes a creole. Creoles are often formed by extended contact of enslaved populations, though they are occasionally a result of trade. Languages created by historical divergence are typically a result of the fall of an empire in an area. For example, the Roman Empire occupied a great number of places. During the empire, everyone spoke Latin because this is what the Empire decreed. When the Romans fell from power, various groups became independent, removing themselves partially, mostly, or completely, from other parts of the Empire. As a result of minimized contact, these groups slowly developed their own languages, all of which were a divergence from Latin. Over time, these languages became languages that stood on their own, some of which still exist today.

Historical divergence is just when languages drift a part, most common example is the breaking down of the empire.
Many English Only organizations have the goal of forcing immigrants to learn English and that call for the establishment of an official language. The English Only legislation does this by providing benefits to those who learn and speak English and force immersion. They want to establish an official language because it establishes their view and their culture as the dominant ideology and proves who really has power. Furthermore, those who call for English only are afraid to accept that there are other language that are just as rich and complex as English and they fear that by having a multi-lingual nation, its possible for another language other than English to become the dominant language. By establishing a common language and identity people accept that there is a dominant language and culture that surpasses their own. Having a variety of languages and dialects shows diversity and diverse cultures and beliefs.
Additionally, English Only proponents often fear the supposedly negative effects of multilingualism. This fear is scientifically unfounded and those who know and understand that are typically less fearful of community or even national multilingualism. Bi- or multi-lingual schools and other organizations (including bridge immersion programs) are much more expensive and resource intensive and by supporting English Only legislation, education costs stay relatively stagnant and money can be put into other 'more important' things. English Only proponents typically ignore the science behind language, including the knowledge that submersion techniques have been continuously unsuccessful. Anyone who understands this should be against English Only legislation and less fearful of 'us' losing our power just because non-native speakers would be able to be more successful (something our country supposedly encourages to begin with).
A fear of non- native English speakers never learning English if they don't learn it right away.
There are many processes by which languages become extinct such as genocide and disease. another process is by which the subordinate group is told that they should not teach their language to their children by declaring them unfit to teach their children and forcing their children to speak the hegemonic language (usually by removing the children to boarding schools where they are punished for speaking their native language). There are also cultural pressures that force assimilation to the hegemonic culture and language, which discourages the use of L1 or causes L1 to be forgotten or not taught to future generations. There is also economic pressure that tells the minority group that the only way to succeed is to accept the majority's culture, including language.
This is widespread in the modern world because today there are almost no communities that have not yet had contact with the modern world. People usually learn that national language which is the language of power. Minority groups are isolated and only through cooperation with the dominant culture can they have new stuff and technology. There are many incentives for the minority to change and assimilate and its only through accepting the dominant language can this happen. There is also a new world order that calls for a standardized language and an belief in social Darwinism that some languages are better than others, furthermore there is a perceived cost (financially and cultural) of multilingualism. By the time people realize that their languages are endangered or about to be extinct, it it usually too late to reverse, which makes language extinction so common.
Language is a form of communication used for expression and communication with others. However, you can never fully communicate 100% of what you are trying to say. Language is the formal code behind communication. Secondary forms of language include reading and writing, but spoken language is primary. It should be noted that writing isn't an actual form of language though because there is no definitive style. Characteristics of language: it changes, it is linguistically equal, meaning there are never concepts that don't have words, and good grammar doesn't mean good communication, as we have seen with my politicians.
"you can never fully communicate 100% of what you are trying to say" is this right ?
yes, i would say that in dialogue, what you want to say might be interpreted differently by someone else
Yeah, this goes back to what he was talking about with construal
System of signs.

When you try to communicate you are explaining your own memories, and when you talk to other people you are hoping they have a similar memory so they can understand what you are talking about. You also have to take into account that everybody experiences things differently. Spike said something along that line i hope that wasn't too rambly
i agree, especially with the experience part
- language is a system of representation: the arbitrary connection between words and their meanings
Categories! and stuff

Does anyone have a good answer for how it's different from other communicative behaviors?

Animals lack judgement and the complexity of language that we as humans possess. Our language is infinite in meaning and abstract ideas created by sentences.
Language is a way of representing reality, all living languages change, it is flexible and responsive.

Language is made up of two symbols. Arbitrary and Auditory. Also body language does not involve sounds.

Language is an arbitrary symbol system represented by groups of sounds. It is different from body language and other forms of communication because it is primarily an auditory code used to convey one's experiences to another.
Language is a form of communication used for expression and communication with others. However, you can never fully communicate 100% of what you are trying to say. Language is the formal code behind communication. Secondary forms of language include reading and writing, but spoken language is primary. It should be noted that writing isn't an actual form of language though because there is no definitive style. Characteristics of language: it changes, it is linguistically equal, meaning there are never concepts that don't have words, and good grammar doesn't mean good communication, as we have seen with my politicians.
"you can never fully communicate 100% of what you are trying to say" is this right ?
yes, i would say that in dialogue, what you want to say might be interpreted differently by someone else
Yeah, this goes back to what he was talking about with construal
System of signs.

When you try to communicate you are explaining your own memories, and when you talk to other people you are hoping they have a similar memory so they can understand what you are talking about. You also have to take into account that everybody experiences things differently. Spike said something along that line i hope that wasn't too rambly
i agree, especially with the experience part
- language is a system of representation: the arbitrary connection between words and their meanings
Categories! and stuff

Does anyone have a good answer for how it's different from other communicative behaviors?

Animals lack judgement and the complexity of language that we as humans possess. Our language is infinite in meaning and abstract ideas created by sentences.
Language is a way of representing reality, all living languages change, it is flexible and responsive.

Language is made up of two symbols. Arbitrary and Auditory. Also body language does not involve sounds.

Language is an arbitrary symbol system represented by groups of sounds. It is different from body language and other forms of communication because it is primarily an auditory code used to convey one's experiences to another.
Dialect is how people actually speak. Dialect is usually only noticed when someone sounds foreign. Dialect can involve accents and word choice. Connotation is how each term is perceived. Many times people don't understand the difference between the two because most people think of language also including how people talk and sound.
Dialect includes one's vernacular and is not influenced as greatly by things like education.
Dialect is a variety of a language that signals the person's region and social background.
Dialect is what people in specific groups speak. There are many dialects within one language and it all starts with the basics of the different sounds.
Dialect is what we speak. The words we use for particular things (vocabulary) and the order in which words are placed (syntax).
Dialect is what we speak everyday, Language is the collection of dialects.
A dialect is different from a language because dialects are a variety of the language. Many people speak a language and each person has their own dialect although some peoples dialects sound very similar.
Would you say that language is a broader category and dialects are its smaller subcategories?
I guess it's kind of like how there's pasta but then there's like fettuccine and penne and lasagna, etc
That's a very creative way of backing it up!
Dialect is the subconscious thing that we actually speak. Language is an abstract category of different dialects that can be mutually understood. The connotations of each are how they are perceived by others- one usually only notices a dialect when somebody sounds different than them, signifying that they are from a different regional and social background.
A dialect is what we speak, and a language is made up of dialects with mutual intelligibilities. It is hard to tell the differences between dialects when we hear an accent outside of our own, or do not share the same lexicon and to a degree it will become a language of its own, with no mutual intelligibility. People have a negative connotation towards dialect because it sounds like they are speaking the language wrong, so it is preferred to say that someone speaks a variety of languages.
When using language, 'words' would be the most conscious. Learning a new language is much harder as an adult, but when it comes to 'words', they are the easiest to change. 'Grammar' is the next easiest to change. With time and study, anyone can get to a near native use of 'grammar'. However, 'sounds', are the hardest thing to change. After about the age of 10 (this age was given in class), you are almost stuck in your accent, unless you can fake another.
'Words' and 'grammar' are usually unreliable in indicating the identity of a speaker.You can change both of them with practice. But with their 'sounds' or accent, you could possibly place them somewhere on the map after hearing them speak.
'Words', 'grammar', and 'sounds' can all be learned or faked though. Performativity is about 'acting out your identity'. Acting or performing your identity can be something someone does with the purpose of letting others know where they are from or what kind of group of friends they have.
The example given in class was about someone who is from Texas that wears big cowboy boots and hat, and talks with a thick southern accent. That kind of identity, when acted out, would be pretty easy for anyone to place on the map.
Sounds are related to the Brocas area in the brain. This is the study of phonetics. Words are in the anomia of the brain. This is lexical semantics which is the meaning of words. Grammar is in the Vernickes area and studies syntax, which is the arrangement of words and phrases to make complete thoughts.

sounds are a more reliable component of language that helps identify a speaker because sounds are hard to change. (sound house metaphor).
sounds-procedural, grammar-procedural, words- more declarative

Words are the most declarative of the three because they are the easiest to learn and change. Grammar and sounds are harder to change because they are procedural knowledge, so they are habitual and we are used to them in the way we speak. Words are usually the least reliable in portraying the identity of a speaker, since they are so easy to modify. Sounds are the hardest to change and therefore the best at indicating one's identity. If someone has a French/Italian/Chinese accent, their identity will be easier to determine than if they use a certain set of words.
Arbitrary means being random or being unpredictable or being without clear reason. Almost all language, written or spoken, is arbitrary because there is no real system to what system of sounds we use to mean certain things. There is no reason why the sounds of the letters 't-r-e-e' means the tall plant with branches that grows outside. The sounds we have given to objects or emotions are meaningless and our languages only work as a form of communication because we have all agreed those sounds, when put together, mean what we say they do.
We can justify calling a language an auditory symbol system just because of the above explanation. Speaking is the most basic form of language and is not much more than a system of symbols we have all agreed on to mean what we say they do, making them 'iconic'.
Since sign language has no spoken sounds. Arbitrary would not relate to sign because each sign would be clearly created as to relate it's meaning to what the sign looks like. (such as the cradle, or many letters of the alphabet that look like the letters). Neither would auditory relate to sign because it involves hearing. We could change it so that language is not auditory anymore. This opens up language to include signing.

Language is auditory because it uses phonetics to create contrast and because it is primarily spoken. Writing is merely a tool of language that helps us to remember what we want to communicate. Though sign language cannot involve auditory symbols it should still be considered a language because it uses symbols in a way that allows communicative efficiency.
I talked to my FA and she said that this is more asking us to argue against the use of one universal, standard language. And in my discussion class, my GTF had us look at all of the terms (dialect, accent, declarative, procedural, etc.) and use each one as an example of why a standard language wouldn't work.
When people talk about someone's accent, they are generally thinking about the way someone else's way of talking is different from their own. Someone who claims that their own speech has no accent usually thinks so because everyone they spend time with and grow up with speaks in the way they do.
In Lippi-Green's claim that everyone has an accent (p. 44-45 Ch. 3 EWA), she argues that standard language and non-accent are myths. She says that the word 'accent', in a technical sense, is used to distinguish stress in words, and that no matter where you are from there is a speech pattern you have picked up that is specific to the people you have learned to speak from.
In Lippi-Green's "sound house" metaphor (p. 48-49 EWA), she tells a story about a woman who grew up as a native English speaker, but later in life wanted to learn Spanish. But, she was disappointed to find that she couldn't hide her American English accent no matter how hard she worked. At the beginning of the metaphor she explains that, when born, every child has the same capacity to learn any language, but after about 10 years old, or maybe a little younger, (age given in class), an adult isn't fully capable of changing their native language accent. You can however, get your words and grammar to near native level since they are very conscious skills everyone must learn with time. (I wrote more about this for question 6 about words, grammar, and sounds)