Bauman's article relates back to Janowitz in the sense that certain languages are more special than others. Janowitz talks about how God's language is regarded as special because there is some context within God's name and language. Bauman makes the claim about verbal performance stating that "Performance thus calls forth special attention to and the heightened awareness of the act of expression, and gives license to the audience to regard the act of expression and the performer with special intensity" (Bauman 293). In performance, it is the responsibility of audience to be able to interpret and experience the creation of the performer. Is the audience giving the performance special attention for the content or is it due to the expectations of their role in the communication? More specifically, is it given special attention due to its pure form or is it because of their role in the conversation. Interestingly, God's word is special because of its origins, but performance is special because of the skill, content and the role the audience enters.
Goffman writes that "audience members are further removed physically format he speaker than a coconversationalist might be, the have the right to examine the speaker directly, with an openness that might be offensive in conversation" (Goffman 138). Also, there is a particularity to performance in the sense that performers step out of regular speech and go into a more purposeful manner, in the larger sense. For instance, a clown performing for a group of kids is having the overall purpose to entertain with a more specific action which could be a magic trick. This type of purposeful attitude can relate back to Goffman's term of footing. Once the clown packs and leaves, he is just a regular person (for the most part).
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Jakobson
Around the time the "the Raven" was written there is a linguist who studied the peculiarities of the term "nevermore" (59) stating that it "fuses end with endlessness. It contrasts the prospective with the foregone, the eternal with the transient, negation with assertion"(Beaudelaire). It is interesting how ambiguity often draws people in. I think this is due to the desire to make sense of things and when there is no sense, there is a repetition of the idea until some sort of conclusion is drawn. In "the Raven" the word "nevermore" is repeated as the last word in half of the last stanzas.
Today I workshopped a poem called the Flatlands, I will write it here:
Flatlands
Why do I tread
fully awake on these flatlands?
dry, empty, profoundly filled
with the intricate weavings of knowing
when it is anger, violence
pain, pleasure
that drive me?
dry, cracked brown floor
doesn’t breath but
wind blows me
closer to truth.
Getting closer,
my breathing gets
thinner, more fully absorbed
in what I see
from a reasonable distance.
(the sun won’t stop!)
I walk the Flatlands
Doesn’t matter, I see it.
My God is transcendent
My Self is absorbed
I walk the Flatlands.
People thought that I was to answer the question: "Why do I tread fully awake on these flatlands?" but as a writer I was grappling with my own confusion and wanted to bring that across in the poem. I repeated the lines "I walk the Flatlands" because of its own ambilavent meaning to me. I think this is similar to what Poe was trying to do with the word, "nevermore." Obviously, the poem was a personal one to Poe, as it relates to the death of his beloved wife." He grapples with the word "nevermore" repeating it like some sort of catharsis, turning it around until its meaning is something that he can come to terms with. Perhaps he is thinking, can there truly never be more? Or can I get some other meaning out of this?
It is significant how on page 68, Jakobson refers to examples of the saying "Well" named by Dorothy Parker: "'Well!' the young man said. 'Well!' she said. 'Well, here we are,' he said. 'Here we are,' she said, 'Aren't we?' 'I should say we are,' he said, 'Eeyop! Here we are.' Well!' she said. 'Well!' he said, 'well.'" In this dialogue, I sense disunity between the two speakers even thought they seem to be disagreeing. Here again, the repetition is bringing forth a sense of disunity much how in "the Raven" the word "nevermore" was repeated.
Jakobson talks about how it is "Only in poetry with its regular reiteration of equivalent units is the time of the speech flow experienced, as it is." Verse contains a certain characteristic, Jakobson calls it the "measure of sequences" (72), is not used in regular language. He states further on that "verse is primarily a recurrent "figure of sound."
Questions:
What is the recurrent "figure of sound"?
Today I workshopped a poem called the Flatlands, I will write it here:
Flatlands
Why do I tread
fully awake on these flatlands?
dry, empty, profoundly filled
with the intricate weavings of knowing
when it is anger, violence
pain, pleasure
that drive me?
dry, cracked brown floor
doesn’t breath but
wind blows me
closer to truth.
Getting closer,
my breathing gets
thinner, more fully absorbed
in what I see
from a reasonable distance.
(the sun won’t stop!)
I walk the Flatlands
Doesn’t matter, I see it.
My God is transcendent
My Self is absorbed
I walk the Flatlands.
People thought that I was to answer the question: "Why do I tread fully awake on these flatlands?" but as a writer I was grappling with my own confusion and wanted to bring that across in the poem. I repeated the lines "I walk the Flatlands" because of its own ambilavent meaning to me. I think this is similar to what Poe was trying to do with the word, "nevermore." Obviously, the poem was a personal one to Poe, as it relates to the death of his beloved wife." He grapples with the word "nevermore" repeating it like some sort of catharsis, turning it around until its meaning is something that he can come to terms with. Perhaps he is thinking, can there truly never be more? Or can I get some other meaning out of this?
It is significant how on page 68, Jakobson refers to examples of the saying "Well" named by Dorothy Parker: "'Well!' the young man said. 'Well!' she said. 'Well, here we are,' he said. 'Here we are,' she said, 'Aren't we?' 'I should say we are,' he said, 'Eeyop! Here we are.' Well!' she said. 'Well!' he said, 'well.'" In this dialogue, I sense disunity between the two speakers even thought they seem to be disagreeing. Here again, the repetition is bringing forth a sense of disunity much how in "the Raven" the word "nevermore" was repeated.
Jakobson talks about how it is "Only in poetry with its regular reiteration of equivalent units is the time of the speech flow experienced, as it is." Verse contains a certain characteristic, Jakobson calls it the "measure of sequences" (72), is not used in regular language. He states further on that "verse is primarily a recurrent "figure of sound."
Questions:
What is the recurrent "figure of sound"?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Bahtkin an Shoaps Response
The Utterance and Communicative Forms (Bahtkin)
"The plan of the utterance as a whole may require only one sentence for its implementation, but it may also require a large number of them," (81) Bakhtin also states that the expected number of sentences or units of language required for an utterance depend upon the type of speech genre it is. In addition to this, however, states that the study of linguistics ignore utterances because they are so varied in form, length and category. Following these statements he concludes that "speech genres appear incommensurable and unacceptable as units of speech" (81-82). Although the conclusion is a little ambiguous to me, I think Bahtkin is saying that instead of utterances being ignored, which they should not be, that speech genres should not be used as a way to define units of speech, but should be regarded as a separate category all their own.
What does Bahtkin mean when he says "Only after becoming a complete utterance does the individual sentence acquire this ability"? By ability he is referring to its ability to determine "the directly active responsive position of the speaker"(82). If this is so, why is it that sentence lack the ability to determine the next speaker in the conversation? Whether or not conversation is between one person. Bahtkin states that the reason why the sentence lacks this ability is due to the fact that the utterance within the sentence is augmented by nongrammatical aspects, changing it significantly. By this I think he is referring to the context of the speech as well as the way it was spoken and its intention. To put it simply, I am taking it that the sentence is divided as so in syntax due to the nongrammatical aspects inferred above.
The utterance is further emphasized in linguistics when it is almost described by Bahtkin as the original frame of communication forms such as sentences. He is saying that like a poet, we use specific words in context in order to bring forth an idea, actually an utterance, that was originally in mind. This goes back to what he said initially which was, the idea "that language enters life through concrete utterances, and life enters language there as well" (63). Actually, life enters language by forming the framework for the communicative unit, which is the original idea of the utterance.
Questions:
How is speech genre correlated with utterances? Do they represent the same thing?
Shoaps and Judas
One particularly notable portion of the description of Judas testament was the fact that one man referred to the text as "poetic" in its vulgarities. The reason why this is so significant to me is because of what was said in the Bahtkin article about utterances and how they shape the communicative unit much like how a poet uses words to convey the utterance using words that are only relative in that context. The diction in poetry can be used in other context and mean something else, but it is the complete utterance that is the result of communicative units in a text such as sentences and words.
How this relates to the Judas Testament is interesting because the separate pieces of gossip and misconducts of the townspeople are parts within the text, the actual message of the text, or utterance, is that these embarrassing stories are done with once they are mentioned. The actual purpose of the Testament (which appears to be catharsis of sin) represents the utterance, or is the utterance, and the personal stories are just the "sentences," (diction) as described in Bahtkin's article or merely part of the syntax that composes the true content of the speech.
In addition, the document is so effective because the authors are unknown, therefore, the text is attributed to Judas, in a type of mystical unspoken type of way.
Interesting definition
"communicative ecology" is the study of the relationships between social interactions and the way people communicate. Or another way to look at it is the way that communication of social interactions is perpetuated throughout the culture.
In response to this definition, some types of speech genres, such as the Judas Testament, simultaneously refer to "moments of speaking as well as cultural values"(465 Shoaps). In reference to the Judea Testament the "moments of speaking" are the actual, literal speech and "content" is the utterance, the reason for the text to exist.
Questions:
Is the cultural context the specific cultural values such as infidelity, human character, ect.?
"The plan of the utterance as a whole may require only one sentence for its implementation, but it may also require a large number of them," (81) Bakhtin also states that the expected number of sentences or units of language required for an utterance depend upon the type of speech genre it is. In addition to this, however, states that the study of linguistics ignore utterances because they are so varied in form, length and category. Following these statements he concludes that "speech genres appear incommensurable and unacceptable as units of speech" (81-82). Although the conclusion is a little ambiguous to me, I think Bahtkin is saying that instead of utterances being ignored, which they should not be, that speech genres should not be used as a way to define units of speech, but should be regarded as a separate category all their own.
What does Bahtkin mean when he says "Only after becoming a complete utterance does the individual sentence acquire this ability"? By ability he is referring to its ability to determine "the directly active responsive position of the speaker"(82). If this is so, why is it that sentence lack the ability to determine the next speaker in the conversation? Whether or not conversation is between one person. Bahtkin states that the reason why the sentence lacks this ability is due to the fact that the utterance within the sentence is augmented by nongrammatical aspects, changing it significantly. By this I think he is referring to the context of the speech as well as the way it was spoken and its intention. To put it simply, I am taking it that the sentence is divided as so in syntax due to the nongrammatical aspects inferred above.
The utterance is further emphasized in linguistics when it is almost described by Bahtkin as the original frame of communication forms such as sentences. He is saying that like a poet, we use specific words in context in order to bring forth an idea, actually an utterance, that was originally in mind. This goes back to what he said initially which was, the idea "that language enters life through concrete utterances, and life enters language there as well" (63). Actually, life enters language by forming the framework for the communicative unit, which is the original idea of the utterance.
Questions:
How is speech genre correlated with utterances? Do they represent the same thing?
Shoaps and Judas
One particularly notable portion of the description of Judas testament was the fact that one man referred to the text as "poetic" in its vulgarities. The reason why this is so significant to me is because of what was said in the Bahtkin article about utterances and how they shape the communicative unit much like how a poet uses words to convey the utterance using words that are only relative in that context. The diction in poetry can be used in other context and mean something else, but it is the complete utterance that is the result of communicative units in a text such as sentences and words.
How this relates to the Judas Testament is interesting because the separate pieces of gossip and misconducts of the townspeople are parts within the text, the actual message of the text, or utterance, is that these embarrassing stories are done with once they are mentioned. The actual purpose of the Testament (which appears to be catharsis of sin) represents the utterance, or is the utterance, and the personal stories are just the "sentences," (diction) as described in Bahtkin's article or merely part of the syntax that composes the true content of the speech.
In addition, the document is so effective because the authors are unknown, therefore, the text is attributed to Judas, in a type of mystical unspoken type of way.
Interesting definition
"communicative ecology" is the study of the relationships between social interactions and the way people communicate. Or another way to look at it is the way that communication of social interactions is perpetuated throughout the culture.
In response to this definition, some types of speech genres, such as the Judas Testament, simultaneously refer to "moments of speaking as well as cultural values"(465 Shoaps). In reference to the Judea Testament the "moments of speaking" are the actual, literal speech and "content" is the utterance, the reason for the text to exist.
Questions:
Is the cultural context the specific cultural values such as infidelity, human character, ect.?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
What Is In a Name? and The Corporeality of Language
What is in a Name?
The article by Janowitz stated that through interpretation of the Targumic translation of Genesis and Exodus, the name of God contains the pragmatics of His name, which are His acts of creation. God's speech is divine and separate from the speech of humans so by linking his name with its pragmatics, the Targumic translation is denoting that God's name itself is a word more powerful than just a name. Janowitz emphasizes this statement by saying, "Finally it is worth repeating that one of the central messages of this translation is the linking of the divine name with the act of creation" (396).
It is interesting how the name of God itself is seen as a gift rather than just language. Janowitz references a story in the Bible regarding the name: "The Name was once entrusted to the entire nation, given to them during their journey through the desert. It was taken away, however, when they worshiped the Golden Calf" (398). This relationship with the Name can be further investigated with God's conversation with Moses when he asks God's name. God answers, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3). This answer is both subtle and powerful. Perhaps by saying this God is saying that he is whoever he says he is. He is saying that whatever he says he is, he will be. This itself is an example of an utterance. The power that God seems to have over language is extended to how his people use his language. As in the story of the Golden Calf, he gave the nation the ability to use his name and then took it away. It is truly evident in Biblical texts how God's language is far different from ordinary language.
The Corporeality of Language
Augustine talks about the flaw of the human ability to interpret signs which he defines as "Things which are used to signify something." I find that definition ambiguous unless he is referring to the actual usage of language itself. For instance, thoughts of the mind are often limited within the mind if there are no physical examples already existing outside of the mind. That is how I interpret Augustine's explanation of corporeality and its limitations. In the sin of Babel, people were forced apart by language. The tower of Babel could not be built because people could not understand each other. Perhaps then, language is limited by the mind (which is related to the body) and not the spirit, thus relating to the Fall when humans were banished into corporeal existence. In psychology, it is studied in bi-lingual children that the lobe responsible for linguistics in divided in half. Language is the production of the corporeal brain. Therefore, the restriction of human language is quite possibly related to the body and limiting in spirit. This goes back to the divinity of God's language compared to human language. I thoroughly agree with Augustine in his interpretation of language and signs when it comes to the physical limitations of language due to the mind.
The article by Janowitz stated that through interpretation of the Targumic translation of Genesis and Exodus, the name of God contains the pragmatics of His name, which are His acts of creation. God's speech is divine and separate from the speech of humans so by linking his name with its pragmatics, the Targumic translation is denoting that God's name itself is a word more powerful than just a name. Janowitz emphasizes this statement by saying, "Finally it is worth repeating that one of the central messages of this translation is the linking of the divine name with the act of creation" (396).
It is interesting how the name of God itself is seen as a gift rather than just language. Janowitz references a story in the Bible regarding the name: "The Name was once entrusted to the entire nation, given to them during their journey through the desert. It was taken away, however, when they worshiped the Golden Calf" (398). This relationship with the Name can be further investigated with God's conversation with Moses when he asks God's name. God answers, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3). This answer is both subtle and powerful. Perhaps by saying this God is saying that he is whoever he says he is. He is saying that whatever he says he is, he will be. This itself is an example of an utterance. The power that God seems to have over language is extended to how his people use his language. As in the story of the Golden Calf, he gave the nation the ability to use his name and then took it away. It is truly evident in Biblical texts how God's language is far different from ordinary language.
The Corporeality of Language
Augustine talks about the flaw of the human ability to interpret signs which he defines as "Things which are used to signify something." I find that definition ambiguous unless he is referring to the actual usage of language itself. For instance, thoughts of the mind are often limited within the mind if there are no physical examples already existing outside of the mind. That is how I interpret Augustine's explanation of corporeality and its limitations. In the sin of Babel, people were forced apart by language. The tower of Babel could not be built because people could not understand each other. Perhaps then, language is limited by the mind (which is related to the body) and not the spirit, thus relating to the Fall when humans were banished into corporeal existence. In psychology, it is studied in bi-lingual children that the lobe responsible for linguistics in divided in half. Language is the production of the corporeal brain. Therefore, the restriction of human language is quite possibly related to the body and limiting in spirit. This goes back to the divinity of God's language compared to human language. I thoroughly agree with Augustine in his interpretation of language and signs when it comes to the physical limitations of language due to the mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
