Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature 1. Speakers interact with their audiences, writers do not Detachment – the passives,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature 1. Speakers interact with their audiences, writers do not Detachment – the passives,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature 1. Speakers interact with their audiences, writers do not Detachment – the passives, nominalizations Involvement – First Person References, Speaker’s Mental processes, Monitoring of Information Flow, Emphatic Particles, Fuzziness, Direct Quotes 2. Oral Literature 英語語言學理論與研究 Instructor: 黃淑鴻教授 Presenter: 胡美英 20978L020

2 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Share knowledge concerning the environment of the conversation Signal understanding and ask for clarification Monitor the effect Has face to face contact Is aware of an obligation to communicate what he or she has in mind in a way that reflects the richness of his or her thoughts – not to present logical coherent but experiential stark skeleton a speakera listener

3 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Readers Are displaced in time and space results 1.The writer is less concerned with experiential richness. 2.The writer is more concerned with producing something that will be consistent and defensible when read by different people at different times in different places, something that will stand the rest of time. Writers

4 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Chafe will speak of ‘ involvement ’ with the audience as typical for a speaker, and ‘ detachment ’ from the audience as typical for a writer.

5 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT The detached quality of written language is manifested in devices which serve to distance the language from specific concrete states and events. Suppressing the directive involvement of an agent in an action A Device in English The Passive Voice

6 INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Examples of the passive 1.Its use was observed on only a single occasion. 2.The resonance complex has been studied through experiments with an electronic violin. From the written data, we don’t know who performed the action – i.e. the agent is unknown.

7 INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not 1.Allowing predications to be integrated within larger sentences 2.Suppressing the directive involvement of an agent in an action Another Device Nominalization Nominalization pp

8 INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT SpokenWritten The Passive Nominalization Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not 1.There were about five times as many occurrences of the passive in our written sample as in our spoken. 2.There were about eleven and a half times as many occurrences of nominalizations in our written data.

9 INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT First Person References SpeakingWritten A speaker is more frequent reference to him or herself. First person reference is much less frequent in formal written language. Typical examples of reference in our spoken data were (25a) I have a friend who’s …. About six foot and blond. (25b) I was reading some of his stuff recently. Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not

10 First Person References Occurrences per thousand words of first person references, including I, we, me, and us were: SpokenWritten Second person reference would seem to be also a symptom of involvement, but there were too few examples in our data to demonstrate anything of interest. Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT

11 Speaker’s mental processes References to a writer’s own mental processes were conspicuously absent in our written data; some examples from spoken language follow: (26a) and I had no idea how I had gotten there. (26b) but … I can recall … uh… a big undergraduate class that I had. (26c) and I thought … am I alive? The occurrences of such references in our data were as above: SpokenWritten INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not

12 INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Monitoring of Information Flow A speaker monitors the communication channel which exists with listener and attempts to make sure that the channel is functioning well. Colloquial expressions like well, I mean, and you know perform one or another of these functions: (27a) Well I.. I took off four weeks. (27b) But.. But as it is still I mean.. Everybody knows everybody. (26c) So we..so we..you know, we have this confrontation.

13 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Monitoring of Information Flow These expressions were significantly present in our spoken sample, and entirely absent in the written: SpokenWritten well I mean You know

14 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Emphatic Particles Particles expressing enthusiastic involvement in what is being said, like just and really, are also diagnostic: (28a) I just don’t understand. (28b) And he got..really furious. The occurrences were: SpokenWritten just really5.10.0

15 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Fuzziness Vagueness and hedges are also more prevalent in speaking, and may also express a desire for experiential involvement as opposed to the less human kind of precision which is fostered by writing. The following are examples of spoken fuzziness: (29a) schemes for striking, lifting, pushing, pulling, and so on.

16 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Fuzziness (29b) moving the bridge or soundpost a millimeter or two. (29c) Since this banker is something like forty-seven, (29d) And he started sort of circling. Counts of occurrences per thousand words of this kind of language were: SpokenWritten

17 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not INVOLVEMENT DETACHMENT Direct Quotes Direct quotes also express an involvement in actual events which tends to be lacking in written language. (30a) And uh..she said, ‘Sally can I have one of your papers? (30b) And I said, ‘Well no I’m afraid I don’t.’ The occurrences of direct quotes in our data were: SpokenWritten

18 Speakers Interact with Their Audiences, Writers Do Not Written languageSpoken language Detachment The use of passives Nominalizations Involvement First person references Speaker’s mental processes Monitoring of information flow Emphatic Particles Fuzziness Spoken Written extremes Figures from maximally differentiated samples: spontaneous conversational language and formal academic prose Summary

19 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Seneca spoken in western New York has no written tradition. Asher Wright, a missionary An excellent orthography Some religious materials developedpublished Seneca Rich and varied oral literature Now only accessible from written records Chafe examined features which differentiate spoken and written language Features of a similar sort may differentiate colloquial Seneca from the language used in these rituals

20 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Distinction between colloquial and ritual Distinction between colloquial and written parallel reasons ???? Chafe thought that ritual language, like written language, has a permanence. The same oral ritual is presented again and again with a content, style and formulaic structure which remain constant from performance to performance. Reason 1:

21 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Distinction between colloquial and ritual Distinction between colloquial and written parallel reasons ???? Reason 2: The performer of a ritual is removed from his audience in a way that parallels the solitude of a writer. What he performs is a monologues with minimal feedback and no verbal interaction. Thus the situation is one which fosters detachment rather than in involvement.

22 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature - differences 1.Seneca has no nominalizers performing the same function as the English nominalizers discussed above. 2.It has no participles. 3.It has no attributive adjectives either; adjectival meanings are expressed by stative verbs. 4.It has neither prepositions nor postpositions. 5.It has no complementizers like English ‘that’ or ‘to’. 6.It has no constructions which are like English relative clauses. These features arise in a language precisely because of writing.

23 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Spoken Seneca – fragmented quality Three intonationally separate sentences, four syntatically independent clauses or idea units

24 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature - a Seneca Thanksgiving Ritual An integrated whole The only sentence-final intonation occurs at the end of this sequence; the sequence of phrases or clauses is united into a single sentence. The phrases and clauses depend on one another.

25 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Distinction between involvement and detachment Evidence of Detachment Seneca has an impersonal reference marker, a verb prefix which means ‘one’. As with the passive, this prefix allows the omission of specific reference to the agent of an action. ColloquialRitual ‘one’ prefix236

26 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Distinction between involvement and detachment Evidence of Involvement Seneca has a variety of particles – agwas ‘really’ and do:gës ‘for sure' ColloquialRitual agwas ‘really 50 do:gës ‘for sure' 40

27 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Distinction between involvement and detachment Evidence of Involvement The occurrence of particles expressing fuzziness or evidentiality, whose occurrences per thousand words were as follows:

28 Integration and Involvement in Literature Oral Literature Chafe gave the suggestion that oral literature may indeed has more like written than spoken language in some way. Chafe thought that certainly the differences between colloquial language and oral literature do not in all always parallel those between spoken and written language.

29 Integration and Involvement in Literature Conclusion Spoken and written language differ with regard to two sets of features. fragmentation vs. integration a consequence of differences in the use of time in speaking and writing involvement vs. detachment The different relations of a speaker or writer to the audience

30 Integration and Involvement in Literature Conclusion Chafe suggested that some of the same differences may distinguish colloquial language and oral literature, even in a language that has never been written. The reasons may be that oral literature has a kind of permanence analogous to that of written language, and that the reciter of oral literature is, like a writer, detached from direct person interaction.

31


Download ppt "Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature 1. Speakers interact with their audiences, writers do not Detachment – the passives,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google