Dialects and Stereotypes 

It has been thanks to my flatmate that I have been thinking a lot lately about dialects/varieties of the same language. She is Colombian and has a slightly different pronunciation than the people born in Madrid, which is where we live. So she sometimes tells me how she is often asked by her customers she speaks to on the telephone whether she is Spanish or not. She spoke with customers who had her telling a 'real' Spaniard return the call and was even asked where she came from. When she once replied that she comes from Colombia, many people would ask in a surprised tone "Do you speak Spanish in Colombia?!" Many a time she had to defend herself and her having a job in Spain by saying that she's been living approx. 15 years here, as if having to defend a right to work in any other place that's not your hometown. Well, this was what 'inspired' this post. 

So, what is a dialect really? According to thefreedictionary.com, it is “A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English”.

Great. Now we know why my flatmate is recognized quite easily. She speaks "Colombian Spanish". That means that she sometimes shifts from using the term "coche" to the same term from her native variety "carro", which mean "car". Sometimes she tells me that she's "encartada", meaning something like being very busy while having lots of responsibilities and things in one's hands/arms (bags, etc.). This expression has no perfect equivalent in Spanish. These are some examples of variety in vocabulary. While working, however, she mostly gets caught because the pronounces the Spanish 'c' and 'z' as in bucear (to dive) and cazar (to hunt) with an 's' [busear & casar]. This sometimes can lead to minor and fun misunderstandings between us.

Some other examples, maybe more accesible examples for speakers of English, are the ones in the following videos. As you may know, Robyn of How I met your Mother is Canadian and is constantly being mocked by Barney (who later on turns out to be 1/8 or so Canadian).  In season 4, episode 11, (Little Minnesota) we see how she struggles with her ‘identity’. She’s been living in Manhattan now for some years and tried to adapt herself to her friends and the place she lives now. When Marshall finds out how much she missed Canada, he decides to take her to the Minnesota bar, where he comes to feel home. Home in the sense of belonging to a certain group of people you can recognize by their behavior and dialect. She soon fits in and even wants to immitate being from Minnesota because of this nice feeling of belonging somewhere -the people, the bar, etc. Hence, while hanging out in that bar, in order to not get caught, she could not use Canadian pronunciation. So when she eventually has a slip of the tongue -by pronouncing the preposition "out" /out/ instead of /aut/, things get funny:

Furthermore, this episode gives examples of what idea US citizens have of Canadians. They think Canadians are afraid of the dark. At the end of the episode, Marshall shows Robyn The Hoser Hut, a Canadian bar. And this is what happens:

 

As I suggested at the beginning of the post, as well as suggested in this video, the topic 'dialects' is sometimes closely related to stereotypes. We usually not only find other people’s dialect funny, in comparison to ours, but we also tend to associate it automatically to a certain group of people other than 'our group'. This is quite significant in ideological terms, because society is being split up unconsciously, which can create certain sociological and interpersonal barriers and lead to severe confrontations between speech communities.

 

This example is hilarious. I am German and don't get offended because I am already soooo used to all these stereotypical remarks... And yes, they most of the time come together with the idea learners of German have of the language. "It sounds so tough/rough/unpleasant", etc. are just some examples. So people many times associate it with the people who speak that ugly language. I've also heard many times how inflexible Germans must be, because "Oh! This is such a rigid/restricted language!" And then, proceed to justify their opinion by explaining that there are many declensions in German, which makes it a language hard to learn. We see, then, that many stereotypes can derive more or less directly from the way people seem to speak/articulate. 

So, are stereotypes mere simplifications of cultures that are quite different to our own? Are they a way to critisize other people by means of overgeneralization? I'd say it sure is a barrier between different groups of people, and thus, it becomes an impediment for communication. We simply can't think, however good or bad a person from country X was, that all the people from that country X will be the same. These would -in many many cases- be false preconceptions. Thus, I'd even say that seemingly 'positive stereotypes', such as British people being extremely polite, as well as Canadians (see video "Stereotype?"), must not be considered universal truths. And never -ever- should we act according to them. That is, to consider not speaking to someone just because someone told me that Italians are rude would simply be stupid. 

 These videos of New Girl (season 2, episode 12 "Cabin") I HAD to post because they're simply great to sum up the idea of false, or in this case, [innecessarily] exaggerated preconceptions about another one's culture and this person's need to be surrounded by "members of his own", i.e. people of her/his own culture. Also, it might be important to note that the word culture can be too general. Is there really such a great difference between Schmidt's and Winston's cultures? Schmidt wants Winston to turn on his 'black switch':
 

And things get funnier and funnier when Winston decides to mock Schmidt.

Just to round this post up, I wanted to conclude with this lovely song about different ways of pronouncing the same word. It is an interesting conclusion because the two singers speak about their relationship, their “romance growing flat” due to their differences in taste and pronunciation of words, and, exactly because of this, they seem to consider for a moment  “calling the whole thing off” even though it might break their heart. It finally concludes by stating that it might be better “to call the calling off off” as they need each other and these differences aren’t important enough. 

I myself have come to the same conlusion as Ella and Louis Armstrong...

"For we know we need each other,
So we better call the calling off off!
Let's call the whole thing off!"

____________________________________________________

>>> Next post: Is there anything like a standard language or speech pattern of a country/culture?

Semiotic/Multimodal Analysis of "Dumb ways to die"

It's been some months since I posted something (luckily it's been a very busy year so far), so this time I thought I should upload something I've been working on this semester. I've taken the elective subject called "Introduction to Semiotics and Multimodal Analysis" and I liked it very very much. As I can get a little crazy with things I find very interesting, I began to think about different types of modes and their combinations I could analyse. In class we didn't really come much further than to Ads (images + written text) so I thought it would be nice to try and apply what I've learned up to there on something we haven't dealt with, something quite out of the common choices to advertise something. In this case a video (moving images + spoken/sung text) called "Dumb ways to die" that's been going viral the last few months.

So basically, what I've done is I've chosen something quite funny I found on the internet some weeks before beginning the analysis. I guess there is much more to the ad than what I could analyse, but I've tried to focus on what keeps being a mystery for me: how these apparently dumb commercials have any kind of effect on the viewers. What it is that makes people listen to it and even play it over and over, post it on their Facebook walls and so on, until it finally becomes some sort of "viral" video.

Before giving the whole analysis here, I thought it would be great to give you some information about what Semiotics is, and more importantly (for this special case), what Multimodality is.

1) Semiotics, also called semiotic studies and including (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. However, as different from linguistics, semiotics studies also non-linguistic sign systems [like images, sounds, clothing, gestures...]. Semiotics is often divided into three branches:

• Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their meaning
• Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures
• Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics)

It was Julia Kristeva who established a comparison between the findings in the field of semiotics with the functioning of language: semiotics is “articulated like a language”. Language seems to be necessary to be able to interpret, decode “all other systems, linguistics and non-linguistic” (Benveniste), such as -among others- semiotics. And, according to Claude Lévi-Strauss, 'language is the semiotic system par excellence; it cannot but signify, and exists only through signification' – i.e. it can only exist if there is a system (language) that can decode it and interpret what it is made/used for and so on. From the 70s onward, different means or modes of sign-production have been taken into account and considered as important devices or influences on the message conveyed through the text. How these codes or systems can be manipulated in a social context, or through a certain media/genre. It had become more and more important to research the usefulness, aims, effectiveness, ideology and so on, involved in the process of using signs for communication.
(this is a summary of what I read in Chandler's Introduction to Semiotics http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html)
 
2) According to Kress, a mode is something made and used by society to create meaning. We do use the word 'mode' in order to not have to use the word 'language', as in 'body language', because it is a too general and misleading concept. These modes are cultural resources –regular resources, because we have used them in a long period of time for similar circumstances, and furthermore, they are material (they may have a sound, image, etc.). So as to know if something is a mode, as for example color in a website, we have to ask ourselves whether it contributes to convey meaning or not. The next step would be to find out which role each mode on the site has. Do they have the same importance? What do they contribute to? That is, we have to find out which characteristics of a mode have the potential to make up for the 'deficiencies' of another mode. By finding all this out, we can steadily understand how the whole website functions.
(This is from the Kress' video "What is a mode?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ2gz_OQHhI)

3) Why should we study semiotics and multimodality? From a personal point of view, because if we analyze the use of combinations of modes through a certain period of time it is fascinating how meaning was conveyed e.g. 50 years ago in comparison to nowadays. What was important, decisive for a certain target group, according to a certain aim has changed decisively. To see how it must have worked very well back then, and how, nowadays, it looks/sounds funny to us. Or strange, or revealing (in terms of the way people must have thought back then). To sum up: it gives away much information about human thought, preferences, different cultures and tastes. I should add that it is important to remember that we, (an individual or society) create the meaning, and change it over time into conventions and, thus, codes change.
(this is a summary of what I read in Chandler's Introduction to Semiotics http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html)

Having understood more or less the most important ideas about Multimodality, you will now be able to follow the analysis of the video from the Metro Melbourne, Australia, called "Dumb ways to die":

Before beginning to analyze the clip in more detail, I may clarify first its structure: it is a combination of a quite catchy song --due to its simple lyrics, short lines, the rhymes and frequent repetition of the chorus-- and the visuals. Hence, the lyrics (non-written language), the melody, and the voice of the female singer may be considered as several ‘submodes’ functioning as one –auditory- mode. Then, we have the visual mode, which consists of the short written message at the very end (image 1) and the animated cartoons.

Having shortly mentioned the different modes, we may consider the union between the visual and auditory modes: the whole composition consists of five parts. In each, four different situations are depicted. As we are dealing with a non-static mode, I consider each situation/action framed: it separates it from the next situation and indicates discontinuity. Only in the last part, in which we find the main aim of the ad, there are five different situations depicted. Again, all besides the last one rhyme AABB/chorus x2. The last part rhymes AABCD. There is, however, an E line which is used, as well as the choruses, to break the usual rhythm, to make it salient, and to link it directly to the last chorus. On a linguistic level, it may also be used to, firstly, create again a humorous environment despite having described three serious situations, and secondly, to make the audience notice a difference between the last and the previous parts. Whereas all the previous were exaggerated and silly ways to die, these three last ones are real problems and because of it, "quite possibly the dumbest ways to die". Accordingly, the main idea behind this ad was to show many silly situations in which one can die, which serve as an introducer to the real message: the three most 'silly' ways we can die around trains and rails, i.e. to "stand on the edge of a train station platform", to "drive around the boom gates at a level crossing", and to "run across the tracks between the platforms". And then, we get the only written linguistic part, the warning "Be safe around trains. A message from Metro", which I consider to be "framed", separated from the singing of the last part, but still a constituent of the last part because of the relevance and closure it gives to the ad[1]:

If the ad contains such a serious message, why were cartoons chosen over human characters? The protagonists are quite cute 'humanized' figures which, one after the other, depict a short situation or action. Namely, "take your helmet off in outer space". This sequence begins with a colored figure taking its helmet off in outer space and it ends with its head exploding (image 2). Note that I am using the -ing progressive because the sequences neither begin nor end. Each sequence begins and ends with an unfinished action, as if it was intended to depict only the process that is described in the lyrics. By using these characters carrying out actions the normal audience predicts to end tragically, the animators used humor as the main driving force. We can notice it both in the lyrics, in which increasingly dumb ways to die are enumerated, but also in the visual part, the animation. For example, the only remains of the exploded head are the figure's eyes, which end up twirling around in space. Eventually, before the next part, all dead figures sing happily together the chorus. Here our protagonist holds his eyes up high and swings them along with the rhythm of the song:

This is again a quite fun characteristic which the animators arranged similarly with all the figures, something that can only be depicted in this manner by using cartoons. Thus, we can state that the use of cartoons in this clip is useful 1) to exaggerate facial expressions, body gestures, etc.:

2) to soften all these tiny potential real-life situations as well as rather improbable situations (outer space, bears...) which could have been depicted in a much more disgusting way,

and 3) to even enable a clear illustration of potentially ‘real-life threatening’ situations:

If the producers of this ad had decided to use human characters, the whole ad would have been too morbid. By adding these exaggerated and unrealistic features, a different, even 'de-horrorizing' mood has been created. All the different modes and their features, e.g. a sweet, nice, female singing voice, ironic lyrics, simple rhyme, cute unfortunate characters, overdone situations, and finally –despite their misfortune– a quite joyful mood (in image 2: all dead characters singing together with a smile –ironically– the chorus "dumb ways to die" and looking at the audience, to empathize with them) contribute together to make the song and clip stick in the audience's minds and make them giggle and laugh.

In order to get a more accurate image of the target audience and an explanation for all these mentioned choices, we would need real statistics of accidents related to trains and rails. But we could attempt to conclude that exactly these visual and auditory modes were composed because the target audience needs this combination to get engaged, to pay attention to the ad and to listen to the message: a rather young audience (approx. 12 up to 40-year-olds). The combination of satirical, humoristic features to raise awareness of a quite sad and serious topic in this manner must be received exactly as such in order to work well. There may be a certain older audience who could find it even offensive or absolutely nonsensical.

 

Fact is, it is a very peculiar ad with a serious message. And very probably it has gone viral on the internet because of the choices mentioned, which could indicate that it has been successful. 

Well...this is how I saw and still see it. I hope you enjoyed this post...despite its length :) Please feel free to comment -agree or disagree, and even enlighten me :)

PRESUPPOSITION

This is a very long post (which I was trying to avoid) but I was hoping I could explain what I sort of introduced at the end of a previous post called SPEECH ACT THEORY in The Big Bang Theory.

Presuppositions are implicit assumptions about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted. “I'm doing the dishes now” implies that the speaker, he or she, must have dirty dishes Any listener assumes it to be true. It refers to common knowledge. It's usually shared by the different participants involved in the speech act. You can also put the same sentence into a negative one, but the presupposition would still be the same.

There are six “major” types. Though I have read there are many more, for the purpose of this entry I will only list these six.
1. Existential Presupposition: By saying “Give me the glass, please”, the speaker is basically saying that the mentioned glass does exist.
2. Factive Presupposition: Can be used with verbs such as “regret”, “know”, “realize”, “be aware of” and so on. “He regrets stealing the bike” presupposes that he (whoever he is) stole a bike.
3. Non-factive Presupposition: Presupposes the non-truth of the fact. “She pretended to be rich”. If she was rich, she wouldn't have needed to pretend being rich.
4. Lexical Presupposition: Presupposes something that is not explicitly said. By saying “Tom escaped”, the speaker implies that Tom tried to escape and finally succeeded. The speaker is understood without explicitly saying that Tom had been trying to escape before succeding. Words such as “still”, “again”, “continue”, or “no more/any more/no longer” give listeners hints: “The King is still ruling the country” → The King ruled the country before.
5. Structural Presupposition: Is mainly used with “wh-” words. By asking “When did your dog die?” a listener knows immediately that the dog died. There is no answer needed to presuppose this fact. “How many years have you been living in Spain” makes the listener presuppose that you (i.e. the addressee of the question) has been living in Spain in the past.
6. Counterfactual Presupposition: What is presupposed is not only not true but it is the opposite of what is said that is true. “If I weren't poor” means, then, that the speaker actually is ill. “I wish I had called him” → The speaker did not call him.

In order to draw these conclusions for ourselves in our everyday life, we use unconsciously a “tool” called Entailment, which helps us to get to a logical consequence when we hear or read sentences. The utterance “Tom has been caught by the police” entails the truth of another one. Firstly, the presupposition would be that Tom escaped (if not, the police wouldn't be trying to catch him, for example). And secondly, the entailment would be that he is no longer free (if we imagine that he escaped temporarily from jail), that he is under arrest.

Finally, we must also know what an Implicature is: we usually talk in order to successfully communicate and thus, cooperate each other with our interlocutors -that is, we contribute to build up information and the understanding of it. If someone asks you “Have you passed your Literature exam?” and you answer “My brother has a new girlfriend” there is no cooperation whatsoever in trying to maintain a coherent conversation. Hence, there is no implicature. If a speaker uses implicatures and the listener recognizes them, we speak of an inference.

Well, now we may apply this to what Leonard said to Sheldon in the Episode about the sarcasm sign. This was the conversation they had in the kitchen:
- "For God's sake, Sheldon. Do I have to pull out a sarcasm sign everytime I open my mouth?" As usual, Sheldon doesn't get the point and asks
- "You have a sarcasm sign?!" And, again, as usual, Leonard put on his I-can't-believe-this-face and answers:
- “No, I do not have a sarcasm sign”.

What I wanted to explain in this post is that Sheldon, in his linguistic/interactive etc. etc. clumsiness again does not understand irony, sarcasm because of his lack of understanding indirect speech acts and this way takes Leonards “rhetoric question” literally. Usually, “normal people” understand the difference between saying “a sarcasm sign” and “the sarcasm sign”*. Is is the latter example, the definite noun phrase, that linguistically "assures" the existence of whatever is named after it. But again, Sheldon doesn't work well with implicatures, entailments, inferences, which are all related to speech acts.

*Think about it. Usually, when actually have that X, when we speak with someone who also knows of the existence of it, we would say “the X”. If many Xs exist, but we do not own one, we use “a X”. As in “I might buy a car soon”. Whereas, if a friend forgot something in your car you would say “Have a look in the car”.

WHY PATCHWORK DESIGN?

This year I had an incredible teacher in the subject Discourse and Text who explained which the features of language are. She spoke about the texture language has, the ability to make all elements work together in an articulated or non articulated manner. The form it has, what its structure is. All the elements -even if tiny words- work together to create a larger element. There is always an internal unity. It is always (whether spoken or written) a unified whole.

The thread that forms a piece of cloth could be a tiny element, then, some more words, or even phrases or sentences put together could be one of these patchwork squares. And if we put together the squares, we can get short or huge texts. But they are always linked to another thread of another square.

This roughly explains cohesion (lol). Why we can find a lot of lexical repetition throughout a long text, substitution without losing track of what is meant and so on.

This brilliant teacher showed us a close-up picture of a piece of cloth, so at first sight we couldn't really identify what it was. This way she also emphasised the necessity of getting information about the context. Hence, if we only see the threads (according to the visual metaphor: only some words) we can't guess what it is/its meaning. But later on, as she showed us another image in which we could see the whole piece, we knew what it was. A beautiful lesson!

So I thought that a patchwork background is a nice visual metaphor to extend this idea. Not to speak about the fact that we can perceive language as colorful, playful and creative as creating a patchwork blanket... 

These images are only examples that illustrate the idea I explained before. They are not the actual images my teacher used.

PROSODY IN ORAL LANGUAGE – Stress, Intonation, and Pause/Timing

In Linguistics Prosody the rhythm, stress, and intonation of speech. Thus, as it is part of the oral language, we may consider many more posibilities of “manipulation” the sound of a word, a sequence of words or whole sentences as if they are written. I will consider only stress and intonation for the purpose of this entry.

In Discourse, Consciousness, and Time (1994), Wallace Chafe gives us plenty of information about the term prosody: it “embraces a variety of perceptual and physical properties of sound, including pitch, loudness, timing, voice quality, and the presence or absence of vocalization itself.” Further: we can “approach prosody from the perspective of a phonetician, using displays of frequency, intensity, and duration as the primary data for understanding what language does with these aspects of sound” (page 56). A little later, Chafe states that language is segmented into spurts, or “intonation units” (page 57).

Steven Pinker further states in his book The Language Instinct (2007) that we continuously change pitch over the course of a sentence. This process is called Intonation: “Intonation is controlled in sarcasm, emphasis, and an emotional tone of voice such as anger or cheeriness” (page 160).

In the TV series Cougar Town, episode 4 from season 2 “The Damage you've done” (min. 11:20) Travis, previous to going to college agreed with his still-girlfriend Kylie to have a freer relationship and see others when they're not together. When he comes home and meets up with her, he suddenly realises Kylies new “kissing-behavior”. So he asks her why she is biting him while kissing:

Travis: […] Well, it was a little scary. Where is this coming from? Are you seeing this guy from before?

Kylie: I told you. I'm not seeing...him.
Travis: You stress the word him as if there were other hims.




Through this example, we can observe how Kylie uses two different aspects of prosody: stress of the word “him” and a slight pause immediately before the emphasised word. In this case, we can certainly say that it is done on purpose to make the listener notice the little lie behind the utterance. As if saying “well...not him, but another guy/him”.
We could even see it as an attempt to soften what is being told in a second, or to warn about something the listener won't like a bit.
I also find Travis' answer quite amusing, especially when uttering the plural of “him”, also emphasised, as if being aware of the lie and of the strangeness in using a plural for this pronoun. Of course, if you watch the episode, you can observe additional features surrounding the utterance, such as facial and body gestures, which also give away much information to the “simply” connected words.
Besides, Chafe considers the use of “well” at the beginning of a sentence to be an example of a regulatory intonation unit. In his book he also speaks about substantive and fragmentary intonation units (page 63).

Obviously, there is much more to Prosody and all its components. We will see them as I will be finding some examples...

WELCOME

This blog is essentially about anything related "farfetchedly" or directly to linguistics. In order to not bore you, I will try to apply random linguistic theory to or explain them through fun/interesting TV series, movies, comics, novels, etc.

There is no order in which I will deal with the specific topics. I usually watch something interesting worth explaining or commenting on and then search for theory from different sources.

Please don't take this blog too seriously. Even though I always try to give the year, type and title of the source, there may be mistakes. And obviously, I won't give the whole theory surrounding a topic, but rather what I think is important to what I want to mention in relation to the series, movie and so on.

As I am still studying (Complutense University in Madrid) and not a native English speaker, I kindly ask you to pardon all the possible grammar or subject-related mistakes. Of course, any comments, suggestions, and opinions are more than welcome.

Thanks a lot and enjoy the stay :) Greets,

Lingueek.

INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS

Through this comic stripe taken from Calvin and Hobbes we can see a good example of Indirect Speech Acts.

Calvin

View more documents from lingueek