Language in a Social Perspective
I thought it was interesting the first part of this section how Firth and Malinowski are differentiated based on their interpretation of linguistics – the context of culture versus Firth who studied context of situation (and the generalized patterns of actual behavior) and how behavior potential and meaning potential are derived from them. First, it makes me think of a phrase we talked about in Qual I “bless your heart” and how it can mean different things in different contexts –or what can be referred to as “delicacy” on pg .49, so if language is so incredibly situated, how can we interpret meaning as researchers? This was a question I struggled with, because every situation we observe, comes with it inherent meanings, (gestures, winks etc. ) that people privy to that situation understand—I guess what I am asking is, can we ever understand the “social foundations” of behavioral meanings? (Pg 60 end of second paragraph proposes we can?).
This article also discusses the “grammatical system of adult language” (pg.61) as 1) ideational, 2) interpersonal and 3) textual. These refer to a persons (generally) experience, social interplay and within context and creating text. I thought that was a good start to understanding how language functions and is organized –but I wonder if it’s more complex than these idea suggest. On pg. 64, I agree with the statement that “some concept does underlie the approach of the school towards its responsibility for the pupils success in his mother tongue.”
I think I am beginning and *trying* to make sense of this field called “sociolinguistics” and its relation to the classroom, you see in the classroom that I have experienced, I had students with different dialects, different ways of speaking the normalized version of English and a subject that I was supposed to teach that was a whole new set of vocabulary. So I definitely understand the blending in of different cultures and “life worlds” but to a point where everyone understands what you are talking about is difficult. For example, the DNA example that they gave in the text—too explain the functioning of the protein complexes that modify DNA and the functioning of each to students is incredibly time consuming –I guess I am thinking of the practicality of teaching linguistics from a basic level, and I see it, in the current educational context, an *almost* insurmountable endeavor…
2 comments:
Just some initial thoughts: I too was thinking about how important context is. I was thinking about "inside jokes" where a researcher would not understand or be aware of all of the meaning behind a phrase. Also, intonation, gestures, and facial expressions are so important to the meaning of the words...especially when you get into sarcasm.
It is interesting watching children learn language. I was thinking while reading about how there is a time in language development when children speak a language that may be mostly understood by their parents/caregivers and only slightly understood by the outside world. The children are socialized into standardized meanings and pronunications.
Refering back to your students with different dialects, there are some children who will speak one way in one context and another way in another setting. For instance, I knew a girl who had a British accent with her British parents while at home, but at school she spoke like everyone else.
There is a children's book that I have thought about several times as we have talked about language in this class. The book is called Frindle, and is by Andrew Clements. It is about a boy who decides that he is going to create a word in the English language. It is only about 4th grade level reading, but it is an excellent story about language and how it changes.
I loved reading Frindle to my students! I have to admit, though, I was always a little worried one of the kids might try out some of the tricks the main character and his friend pull over on their teachers.
I thought Halliday was a complicated reading. I agree that language is situated in a “system” and in the culture, and that language reproduces culture. But, analyzing interactions seems like a never-ending well of possible meanings.
I appreciated Halliday’s introduction to chapter 5: “But truly speaking man does not talk; men talk. People talk to each other…” (p. 169). I would think that even inner-monologues or “talking to ourselves” is situated in the system of language with which we operate externally with others.
One definition Halliday provided that I found particularly helpful was that of “register.” Having lived and worked in a country with various prominent dialects, languages, and mixtures of both, register seems like the best way to explain what I encountered. Also, I have noticed even within myself a tendency to speak certain ways with my family (both dialectical, choice of vocabulary, topics, and position/relationship role) versus with people at work or school. Which, I guess means, my semantic network then changes drastically as I employ different registers.
Post a Comment