grammar speaking writing

Grammar in context (OU)

Sees 'grammar as a tool for adapting our communications in ways which present us and our message in different lights and is dependent on may contextual factors'  ( KRO including whether f-f or online').  ' exploring grammar can allow you to see how language is intertwined with both describing a view of the world and interacting with others in it'

Grammar is different in speech and writing

lexis ( choice of vocabulary) combined with choice of grammar  lexico-grammar convey the meanings we make with language

Descriptive grammars

Different theories of language result in different types off grammatical description. Grammar  as choosing different forms to express different types of meaning rather  than as correct usage

•   Structural (traditional) grammar as parts of speech eg noun, verb

•   Functional grammar how words combine to give meaning - how we use grammar rather than its correctness

Prescriptive grammars

 - how we should write or speak(rather than how we DO speak) rules of sentence construction eg do not split infinitives

Contextual influences

Malonski grounded description of grammar in cultural, geographical, social and economic conditions. ' how variations in what we are doing, who we are communicating with, whether face-to-face or separated in time and space' .... affect our choice if grammar. Ie socio-cultural context rather than in the context of the immediate text.

Writing at at a distance

•   Listener Cannot ask for 'immediate' clarification

•   Speaker Rephrasing limited

•   Listener no NVC indicators about understanding and emotions of the listener when we write we are likely to be observing the conventions of both contexts

Systematic variations between writing and speaking

Most significant is the amount of information per word used. ? Reflection of one as a very planned environment.

Speaking

•   More informal

•   Not so careful about choice of words

•   No time to plan and revise to fit in with the meaning we want to convey

 'Most choices of language usage are unconscious  but nevertheless motivated'

Speaking face-face different to speaking online (KRO no evidence)

Speaking f-f  think in terms of utterances rather than sentences

No full stop

Utterances seem incomplete or they change direction

String of utterances linked by some key words e.g. and

When f-f we share an immediate physical context therefore  do not need to make everything explicit, can use question tags (would she?) which invite a response either verbally or by a nod of the head, i.e this practice also invites interactiveness

Missing out pronouns is common and probably adds to a feeling of closeness. Whereas in writing ' uses fuller combinations of nouns and adjectives to specify who or what is being referred to'

Vernacular range, contractions (i've) non standard usage, repetition and hesitation

Ellipsis

' occurs when some elements if a phrase or other unit of language are not specified because they can be inferred from the contexts'. Occur in both speaking and writing but more common in speech.

Dysfluency, -

pauses and hesitators

'analyses of large amounts of conversational data shows that there are systematic patterns in how they are used'

Hesitators - indicators that a speaker has not yet finished their turn for example the speaker needs some time for forward planning of what to say next or in the future

Pauses - speaker about to start a new part of their utterance , often followed by words such as OK

Repetitions, can function as either hesitators or pauses

Heads and tails

occur frequently in speaking, (based on computational analysis of databases of natural language in real life)

Heads - used a a signal that a new topic of conversation is being introduced so that the listener can prepare for what is coming next.

Tails - 'used as evaluative' contexts , to reinforce

dialect nettle, dunbar

Nettle, D., and Dunbar, R.I.M. (1997)

Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange

Current Anthropology, 38, 1, 93 - 99

p 93 ' Most anthropologists take the human propensity to form groups based on cooperative exchange as a theoretical primitive.  Groups of this kind do seem to be an integral and fundamental part of human social structure'.  The question is why. Natural selection depends on genes and therefore the individual. Cooperative activity that involves the transmission of knowledge does have survival value - but what about reciprocation , how can  it be considered to be 'an evolutionary stable strategy' when you need to give things away. However cooperation is only viable ' when there is relatedness or guaranteed reciprocity between individuals'.

Kinship can secure cooperation,  for unrelated individuals there  has to be a high likelihood of 'meeting in the future ' ,Axelrod (1884) , therefore  continuity is essential for securing cooperative social relations. Suggestion from anthropological studies ' language serves an important index of social allegiances, and this indexing could well be important for the maintenance off group cohesion'.

p94 'why should so much of the surface form of language be acquired from the environment, and why should that environment have come to be so different the world over' Pinker and Bloom (1990) have addressed this question. First, they explain, to represent a complete language, including all the words, genetically might consume excessive genotypic space. Secondly, as the language faculty must be expected to change by genetic drift, an individual with an innate language might well fall out of step with his peers. It would thus be advantageous to have a code with developmental flexibility. To home in on that spoken in the group. Thirdly, as Hinton and Nowlan (1987) find, once most of a trait is determined genetically, selective pressure to represent the rest of the genotype declines, because learning can be relied upon to fill it. Divergence, it is argued, arises as an accidental consequence of the genetic under specification of language.

p 94 'Individuals do not just learn any language, they  " construct their system of verbal behaviour to resemble that common to the group or groups with which (they) wish from time to time to be identified "LePage 1968' p 192

  p 94/95 'Gaertner and Bickman (1971), Giles, Baker, and Fielding (1975), Feldman (1968) and Harris and Bardin ( 1972) have all shown in various contexts.... that use of a highly valued speech variety greatly increases success in obtaining cooperation from strangers' .... ' that access to cooperation depends of having the use of the right linguistic markers. This socio-indexical role may be a function of language of some evolutionary importance.......As Chambers (1995, 208,250) puts it " The fact that linguistic variability is universal and ubiquitous suggests strongly that is fulfilling some essential human need..... The underlying cause of sociolinguistics differences.....is the human instinct to establish and maintain social identity"

Simulation study

An organism's initial  position in an environment  is random and the probability of meeting another organism is   random but the further apart they are the less likely that they will meet. 

Each organism has a memory span and each simulation a set time.

Task - to accumulate wealth. Giving costs 1 unit but the receiver's wealth will increase by 2 units.  ' the asymmetry precisely mirrors the fitness consequences of exchange'

Four types of organisms. Each type has its own exchange statelegy

•   COOPs always gives when it meets another, unless it can remember giving and not receiving in an encounter with that particular individual. ' It this follows a tit for tat strategy of the kind which is highly effective in organisms that can reliably recognise each other'

•   CHEATS - free rider, never gives to anyone

•   POLYGOTS - dialects come into play,. POLYGOTS gives gifts only if the recipient has a nearly identical dialect. When it receives a gift it changes it's dialect to that of its benefactor. In addition it may change one of the numbers that define its dialect probability of this occurring is it's CHANGERATE

•   MIMICS. Also a free rider but changes it's dialect to be like that of a benefactor when it receives a gift.

Results

COOPS and CHEATS

A population  of all COPS does very well

 Introducing just 5 CHEATS is disastrous irrespective of how the other parameters are set - could only counteract by setting memory span at an unrealistic level

POLYGOTS and MIMICS

When all the organisms are POLYGOTS distinctive dialects emerge. Organisms in the same dialect group exchange and therefore keep standardising their dialects, whilst those in differ groups cease to exchange. As long as minimal levels for memory span and duration are met, CHEATS cannot invade although they dominate initially.

MIMICS a minimum of 5 (for this model) needed to invade and can displace the POLYGOTS. However if CHANGERATE of POLYGOTS is increased then MIMICS fail.

Discussion

The simulation is a simple system. Nevertheless ' it shows that cooperation can evolve more easily in a simple system where social marking is present than in one where it is not'

p 98 ' producing distinctive codes may be a way that reciprocal exchange in large groups can be made more stable'

In f-f other systems e.g. Clothing, and other artefacts could be adopted.

' our great skill in using and assessing language as a social marker is an adaptive psychological mechanism tied up with the very development of human exchange and communication'