Stephen van Vlack Sookmyung Women s University Graduate School of TESOL Introduction to Corpus Linguistics Spring 2016 Week 13 Notes Relational Language and Texts -O Keeffe et al. (2007) Chapter 8 Relational Language In the view of relational language offered by O Keeffe et al. (2007) relational language is language that is used to maintain good relations between speakers. This is contrasted with transactional language, which is used to get things done. Based on this we can see that relational language is the social side of things while transactional language is the business side. In most instances of language use, both relational and transactional language formulas are interwoven. This relational language is seen as being something that facilitates interactions. It is, therefore, deemed important. http://vladimirzegarac.info/phatic%20communication%20encylopedia%20article.p df O Keeffe et al. (2007) describe six different types of relational language. Some of these we have already discussed and some quite recently so it seems like the authors are overlapping quite a bit. Conversational routines Small talk Discourse markers Hedging Vagueness and approximation Vocative use These can be linked to at least one of the three pragmatic functions O Keeffe et al. (2007) list on page 160: Discourse marking Face and politeness Vagueness and approximation For our part, we are interested in relational language from the perspective of vocabulary and lexis. What this basically means is that we believe from this perspective that relational language are basically patterns that the learner needs to be exposed to and possibly learn. Like other kinds of lexical units we looked at, relational language, comes in different size units. There are single words such as just and maybe. There are fixed expressions like thanks a lot and you re welcome. We have ones that are less fixed expressions such as are you certain, are you sure, certain, positive, etc. Looking deeper, we also have larger units or patterns that are less fixed and play a larger pragmatic role. So, relational language is a rather varied lexical category. For some of the more fixed words and expressions O Keeffe et al. (2007) suggest that we treat their relational uses as a particular kind of word class in the same way we label words based on their grammatical function, i.e., noun verb, etc. I think it is an interesting idea and one that makes a lot of sense but to do so really means that a rethink of mainstream linguistic theory is required, But of course a lexical approach to language in general requires that. Looking at the pedagogical question, O Keeffe et al. (2007) question the necessity for having students learn relational language, liking it to lexical phenomena previously discussed such as idioms and slang. Without restating their argument it is inferred that they are claiming that it really is up to the teacher to decide whether this is necessary because it is possibly difficult to teach and 2 nd language users might not feel comfortable using such language, But they also mention that students at least have a passive understanding of this type of lexical/linguistic
phenomena. It is certainly true that we generally do not teach relational language or really authentic spoken language. I would, however, argue that relational language is very important in preparing our students for real world interactions. Many of our students suffer because they really do not know how to use language appropriately within interactional settings and this includes writing although it is certainly in speaking in which relational language seems more important. The argument goes, if we help our students in be able to interact better with others by paying some attention to relational language then they will be in a position for more and better types of interactions that lead to better learning. In the end, teaching relational language is or can be similar to teaching other more functional aspects of vocabulary items. I, therefore, believe that this is not only an important thing to teach but it can also be a fun and not necessarily difficult endeavor. One small caution before moving into this, however, is that different dialects of English will employ different forms related to relational language. This again is not different than any other aspect of vocabulary really, but misuses (as with slang) can be problematic. This can in some ways make teaching relational language somewhat difficult. Conversational routines We have already looked at and briefly discussed conversational routines. O Keeffe et al. (2007) list possible examples of conversational routines as thanking, leave-taking, and requests. Aijmer (1996), which seems to be a seminal source for studies on this, lists three main components in conversational routines thanking, apologies, and requests and offers. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0cdmqfjaa&url =http%3a%2f%2fpocketknowledge.tc.columbia.edu%2fhome.php%2fviewfile%2fdownload %2F120545&ei=JA2IU7vZI4SVkgWll4H4Dw&usg=AFQjCNFzqNGhYRuRVl61tUOPTPQ1 oc22dq&sig2=izydtfk7roec1l0a-ghcba&bvm=bv.67720277,d.dgi The lexical aspect here is that these things basically function as chunks but there is a large degree of variability in the chunks that are used. As we have seen throughout this course, these routines vary in a principled way. In this way, when we are addressing aspects of thanking, for example, we need to address specific issues such as when do we thank someone, why, how and who we thank. The easiest to deal with and what we've often been focusing on here is the issue of how. As we've seen there are many different possible forms involved in the basic function of thanking. Some of these use lexical items involving the unit thank, while others do not, e.g., mucb obliged. From the lexical aspect be view all these different possible forms are synonyms. As with synonyms for words with more denotational meaning, none of these are exactly the same. They tend to be used in somewhat different settings and this is something that corpus can tell us about. Issues related to conversational routines also overlap with what we dealt with the previous week when looking at adjacency pairs. Studies of conversational routines have shown that they are exactly that: routine. This means that they have quite predictable patterns. These patterns themselves can be looked at from a lexical perspective. But conversational routines include fixed forms that act idiomatically. Small talk As O Keeffe et al. (2007) mention small talk is used not only to bring people closer but also serves to help keep conversations and transactions going. Many of the materials related to small talk focus on getting conversations started from the perspective of the problem of talking to strangers in a party setting, for example. Of course, this is one aspect of small talk but it is not the only time that we use small talk. As we mentioned over the last few weeks part of the context of interactions relates to the relative power of the co-interlocutors. People use small talk in virtually every type of conversational setting, both formal and informal for a variety of purposes. Most commonly small talk is used to hold people together and to get people interested in each other on a personal level, in addition to whatever is going on transactionally. It can also be used to kill a topic that one person is not comfortable with and essentially by changing that topic to small talk the topic is being wiped away. Much of discussion around small talk is related to possible topics and this is where we see both
similarities and differences across dialectically. Topics for small talk should be things that are not overly personal or potentially offensive. They also need to be something that people have a modicum of interest in. For this reason, to generalize, it seems that when making small talk it is good to try for topics related to the here and now and nothing too personal. This could be the weather (if something is going on) it could be a not wholly controversial political event, or anything else that you know someone will be interested in and know something about. For students this is always something related to school. For adults this is often something related to work. I find with adults that the economy it's usually a pretty good topic as long as you present it neutrally. Thinking about or in relation small talk one other important aspect that needs to be considered is how we actually address the other person and this is where some of the concerns addressed below such as hedging and vagueness become important. When engaging in small talk we don't want to be overly direct and need to make sure that we present questions in a way so that the other person has some way of opting out. This, in effect, then gives us specific information on the types of forms that we need to construct for effective small talk. Discourse Markers We have already discussed discourse markers, it seems that really and well. This also includes back channeling, which we addressed again last week. For this reason I don't think there's any purpose in reviewing this again. Interesting examples are discourse markers like I mean and you know. Hedging Hedgings are used to moderate the force of one s language. As we mentioned above, interactions generally involve power differentials and to keep relations positive between speakers is important that we often soften what it is that we want to say. This could be in relation to any function whether that be thanking, making a request, refusing an important request, etc. Below is a simple example of hedgings at work. Do that abysmal task now! It would be kind of great if you could manage to do that thing I asked you do before in the near future. (1) By hedging a request, the speaker is making the request less direct and are also lowering themselves thereby hoping to get a better result. http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/how-to-teach-hedging-generalising.html http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/13/art_5.pdf http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/13_numeris/10.pdf As discussed in class, hedging is also used when we are either less certain about something (2), we don't need to show certainty (3), or when something itself is uncertain (4). (2) A: What time did you come home last night? B: Oh I do know, around 10. (3) A: How many people you think are here today? B: Well, the stadium is supposed to hold 20,00 people and it looks pretty full so I m guessing about that many. (4) Results of the study indicate that participants may feel benefits as a result of the treatment. (Not everyone did and not in all conditions) Looking at this we can see that hedging is extremely important in how we manage our interactions. Hedgings allow us to keep communication going in ways in which are unlikely to either offend people or results in someone saying something that is untrue. What is also nice about hedging is that there is a somewhat limited number of devices that can be taught.
Vagueness and approximation There are different theories regarding the vagueness of language itself, for it does seem that language in it spoken form is rather vague. As we can see from corpus data, vague expressions are quite useful in language. This lack of precision seems to be based on some sort of efficiency principal. If there is a clear context and that means either immediate or somehow in the past where co-interlocutors share information, then there is often not is strong need for precision in the language that we use. This makes language use easier resulting in greater fluency. By using shared context as well as shared background information this vague language use also brings people together. Witness the joy that teenagers may feel when their speech is not comprehensible to others around them due to its of vagueness. Use of the vague language is based on some sort of shared intimacy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1210_how_to_converse/page1 7.shtml http://www.linguarama.com/ps/retailing-themed-english/vague-language.htm http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1243/positive-uses-of-vagueness-and-ambiguityin-language From the lexical perspective, as with hedgings, vagueness is marked through a rather closed class of rather high frequency lexical items and is therefore relatively easy for us to teach. Vocative use Vocative language use is when the speaker addresses the co-interlocutor directly. (5) Hey you! Stop that now. (6) I would love for you to clean up the dishes, my honeylamb. (7) Snookums, could you help me with this? (8) Mr. Smith, I am appalled to see you in this establishment. (9) Would you be coming around for dinner then John? These may, as is shown in the example above, include the use of a name, a term of endearment, or a pronoun (you). Vocatives are often used to get attention, or can also be used to soften a request. http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/vocativeterm.htm https://suite.io/tanja-batista/5ybn26x Cross-cultural uses The point to be made here, as briefly mentioned in O Keeffe et al. (2007) is that there in fact cross-cultural differences in these uses. That is the different major dialects of English (British, American, New Zealand, Canadian, etc.) show somewhat different patterns. It is, therefore, important to have some idea of the cross dialectical variation. When looking at these features (the different aspects of relational language use) it is important that we really may large distinctions between what occurs in spoken language and what occurs in written language. Many of these features are much more part of spoken language than written language. This does not mean that they don't permit language, but they occur much less often and the forms will be quite different. -Thornbury (2002) Chapter 4 Texts, dictionaries and corpora Of the three main themes Thornbury (2002) discusses in this chapter we should be familiar with the idea of using corpora. We are therefore going to focus our attention here on the idea of texts. The use of texts can be contrasted with the idea of using lists. These two are seen as being opposite poles on a continuum of input types for vocabulary learning. Related to both of these is the practice of using dictionaries.
Advantages of texts over lists Context A text, provided it is well written and authentic, provides a context in which the natural behavior of a lexical item can be observed. Guessing words from meaning is of course one of the chief ways that people learn new words and learn more information about words they already know something about. Cohesion lexical chains Advantages of lists over texts Quick for students to use to review, even learn Simplicity and linear proximity helps to forge connections Easy to make ourselves http://directions.usp.ac.fj/collect/direct/index/assoc/d770133.dir/doc.pdf http://ac.els-cdn.com/0346251x9390027e/1-s2.0-0346251x9390027e- main.pdf?_tid=7ee0cb0c-2246-11e6-bbbd- 00000aacb360&acdnat=1464159865_64983a9296c65a0c0c587bec13e67981 Using dictionaries