The readings for this week focus on the methods of looking at language in conversation. Everyone should read the Monk et al. (1996) piece on process and outcome variables. If you will be transcribing language at all (transcribing audio or video) then you should read Bavelas et al. piece (it is really a lovely summary on how to approach language). Finally, if you are interested in how track 2 type analyses work, read the Hancock and Dunham piece.
This week's assignment is about practicing some analysis and measurement techniques. You should draw on a measurement issue from one of the 3 readings, and then do some kind of language analysis on technology-related media. It will be fun to look at how technology affects language used in media coverage of tech topics. The options are wide-open. For example, you could analyze how often “technology” or the actual technology (video games, TV, movie, etc.) is mentioned in the piece you are analyzing. You could analyze 1 minute of an interview for positive or negative face-related language. You could do an analysis of how media use some language processes in reports on technology-related subjects. You could analyze interviews for track 2 devices (e.g., does the collocation of the interviewer and interviewee matter? would the background noise (studio interviews vs. field interviews) lead to increased track 2 signals at level 1?). The main point is to take some small idea or question, and then measure it in the context of the media coverage of technology.
Your post, therefore, should have a brief summary of the question, a brief description of the method of measurement you used (drawing on one of the readings), and a brief report of your findings. Have fun with it; the point is to get you to practice analyzing real language.
5 comments:
For this assignment, I decided to investigate Monketal’s proposal that the use of first- and second-person pronouns is often meta-conversational. Are pronouns such as “I”, “We”, and “You” always used in indirect queries and tend to be more polite than a direct query? In Monketal’s discussion about surface features of conversational content, he talks about how these first- and second –person pronouns are associated with the social context of the interaction and with concern for social conventions and relationships. Monketal proposes that the best measurement of this is through counting personal pronoun usage from a transcript of what was said. Taking this into consideration, I decided to scrutinize 3 pieces of e-mail correspondence that I have and analyze the usage of personal pronouns. The first e-mail that I looked at was one I received from one of my professors. I was trying to gain a better understanding of a concept for the upcoming class test and he responded with a lengthy e-mail. I found the e-mail to contain a large amount of positive pronoun connotations and almost no use of negative first- and- second pronouns. I then looked at a second e-mail which was from a member of my fraternity house. I was surprised to find a large amount of first-person pronouns and almost no use of second-person pronouns. I analyzed the first person pronouns and they all seemed to be consistent with Monketal’s proposal that they were generally used in a polite manner. The third e-mail I looked at was another one from a member of my fraternity, and I found this one to be most interesting. There was a large use of second-person pronouns and each time they were used, it seemed to be in an unpolite, authoritative manner. After looking at all my findings, I came to the conclusion that overall context of a conversation has significant consequences on how first- and second-person pronouns are used. However, I do agree with Monketal’s proposal that for the most part, these pronouns are generally used in a positive and polite manner.
I decided to investigate the claim that the pronouns “I,” “We” and “You” tend to be used in more polite situations. It makes sense that people with a high level of respect for someone would use those pronouns in a conversation instead of saying the person’s first name. However, it also seems that addressing someone as Mr. ________ or Mrs._________ would be even more polite. It really comes down to the exact situation and how you would expect someone to be addressed. For example, I decided to listen to a segment from an interview with Roger Clemens done by a sportscaster. For those that don’t know, Roger Clemens is one of the most, if not the most respected player in baseball. Therefore I decided to analyze the use of these pronouns during a segment of this interview. In the context, the sportscaster would never call him Mr. Clemens, as that is not how things work in baseball interviews, and it would be more likely, but still not likely for him to call Roger by his first name. I assessed how many times those pronouns were used by the interviewer as well as what other words he used to refer to Clemens or any of his friends.
A special guest
Used to refer to Clemens:
The Rocket- 1
Roger Clemens - 1
The left hander - 1
Spoken to Clemens:
You - 3
Your buddies- 4
You’re - 4
Rocket - 4
You’ve- 3
Your/Yours – 9
I- 7
Spoken by Clemens:
You guys - 3
He – 5 (referring to Andy Pettite)
You (Clemens referring to broadcasters) - 8
I’m (said by Clemens) - 5
I - 13
While the pronouns do seem somewhat polite in the context, I was surprised at the different “slang” thrown in by the broadcaster. He used nicknames just about as much as he used pronouns such as “you.” Also, from Clemens point of view it was clear that he felt “above” the broadcaster when he used terms such as “you guys.” It was interesting to see the use of nicknames instead of pronouns so prevalent, although there was a high level of politeness between both parties.
Commenting on Mark's piece:
Interesting; I wonder if the interviewer was treating "Rocket" as a sort of an honorific nickname, since it presumably plays up Clemens' s baseball prowess. I also suspect it was done as sort of an act to make the interview by the sportscaster more appealing to the viewer by making the two seem more friendly towards each other. Good observation as well that Clemens used language that put him "above" the other party, which is not unexpected in this situation.
According to Monk et al., use of coreferring words such as “it”, “that”, “they”, “he”, and “she” are more efficient in conversation than referring back to the actual noun phrase. Use of these coreferring words may also be evident that common ground has been achieved between the speakers (Monk et al). For this assignment I measured the possibility that (despite possible differences in common ground) the use of coreferring might be higher in CMC than in a telephone conversation. This would be because of the additional effort required to communicate through CMC; use of more coreferring words would significantly reduce the number of words typed by a person.
Telephone Conversation Snippet:
Dad: How is your thesis coming along?
Dad: Have you finished gathering data yet?
Me: No, not yet.
Me: Hopefully I should have all of that done by Monday.
Dad: Good.
Me: I have a meeting with my advisor at 4 tomorrow.
Me: I’ll ask him what he thinks about analysis.
Dad: Also ask him about what technique he thinks would be best.
Me: Ok will do.
Me: Is mom around?
Dad: No she’s gone out to run some errands and to pick up some things.
Dad: She should be back in an hour or so.
Me: Ok I’ll call back either later today or tomorrow to catch up with her.
Dad: All right sounds good.
Tally:
It: 0
That: 1
They: 0
He: 2, Him: 1
She: 2, Her: 1
AIM Conversation Snippet:
Friend: chilling at home in miami
Me: hows that going
Friend: great
Friend: so what's new with you?
Me: not much! home on sb
Friend: in vestal?
Me:): yeah its good
Me:): going to nyc tomorrow
Friend: awww, boooo
Friend: until when?
Friend: who you oging with?
Me: til monday
Me:): just with friends
Friend:): darn
Friend: i get back monday night
Me: haha im a great planner
Friend:): guess you'll have to come again!
Friend: lol
Friend: apparently
Tally:
It: 1
That: 1
They: 0
He: 0, Him: 0
She: 0, Her: 0
Results showed that more coreferring words were used in the phone conversation snippet. This measurement method, however, was not reliable and there were numerous factors that were not controlled for and impacted results. Conversations should have been on the same topic, length of conversations should be held constant, etc. A better method should be used to see the real difference in coreferring word usage between CMC and telephone communication.
Commenting on Greg's Post:
Interesting findings. I totally agree that context has so much to do with the pronouns and tone of the message. I was curious what the difference in context was for the third email you analyzed -- what differences do you think impacted pronoun usage? Also, a note from my own experience - in AIM I feel like very rarely do you write out the person's name who you are talking to in a normal conversation... it would be interesting to see what contexts/tones determine that.
Post a Comment