Tabby Thinks She’s So Wise
When it was over, all I could think about was how this entire notion of oneself, what we are, is just this logical structure, a place to momentarily house all the abstractions. It was a time to become conscious, to give form and coherence to the mystery, and I had been a part of that. It was a gift. Life was raging all around me and every moment was magical. I loved all the people, dealing with all the contradictory impulses – that’s what I loved the most, connecting with the people. Looking back, that’s all that really mattered.
~Quiet Woman at Restaurant, Waking Life
“Certain ways of speaking the same language may differentiate men from women, the young from the old, the poor from the rich, and the like.”[1] Benjamin Lee Whorf set forth a double principle to further explain: the principle of linguistic determinism (the way one thinks determines the language one speaks), and linguistic relativity (differences among languages must therefore be reflected in the different worldviews of speakers) (Salzmann, 54). Because the world can be seen through different lenses and interpreted in multiple ways, the people, gestures, and moments each individual experiences create one’s own reality.
“Language makes us free as individuals but chains us socially.”[2] The social rules of language often force human beings to respond in certain ways. Dell Hymes’ mnemonic device, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G (for setting and scene, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms and genre) helps us look at the complexity of speech events (e.g. interview, telephone inquiry, dialogue, confession to a priest, etc.). His model enforces the notion that to speak a language correctly, not only does one need to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but one also needs to learn the context in which words are used; speech does not occur in a vacuum, but within a specific context.
“Setting refers to the time and place of a speech act and, in general, to the physical circumstances.”[3] Settings will vary from one instance to the next, even if the events are the same kind, but the variation has culturally recognized limits (Salzmann, 249). For example, asking a friend if he wants to go out for drinks after watching a baseball game on a Friday night is an appropriate invitation; however, inviting a friend to a bar during a church service is inappropriate. Hymes distinguishes between setting and scene by designating scene as the “psychological setting” (Hymes, 55-56). One can imagine the identical setting and participants, but completely different scenes: for example, the announcement of a co-workers pregnancy versus the announcement of a fatal accident in a conference room. Setting and scene demonstrate how the context of situation matters.
The next component, participants, includes not only the sender of a message and the receiver, but anyone who perceives the message (Salzmann, 248). The characteristics of the participants: age, gender, ethnic affiliation, relationship among participants, social status, degree to which they are acquainted, and other factors influence communication (Salzmann, 248). For example, the utterance, “There aren’t enough chairs” to one’s wife means ‘Wow! I am popular;’ but to a janitor it means, ‘Go get some more chairs’ (Clark, 277). To understand meaning requires knowledge of social statuses, privileges and duties of both speaker and listener.
Ends, the next component, is purpose of communicative behavior. “An individual may make an offer or a request, threaten or plead, praise or blame, invite or prohibit some action, reveal or try to conceal something” (Salzmann, 249). Often more times than not, one’s goal determines how one speaks and acts. For instance, if Jill wants Jack to attend a party with her, she might say to him, “Even Bob is going.” The presupposition is that if Bob is going, then everyone is going, and therefore the person being spoken to should go. The manipulation is held in the word, even (Clark, 286). Other forms of indirect request are used in giving compliments, commands, and asking questions (Clark, 279). The problem with indirect requests is that they are often misunderstood. If someone says, “would you mind closing the window,” one is not seeking a yes or no answer, but is rather asking the receiver to shut the window. Someone of a different culture may not understand similar discourse routines.
Act sequence refers to the form and order of an event. Religious ceremonies have a specific sequential order. For example, a typical Episcopal Church Service looks like this: when one enters the church, one is greeted by an usher and given a service bulletin; one then sits in a pew and waits for the service to begin; the service begins with everyone standing and singing a hymn (usually there will be a procession consisting of acolytes, the choir, and the clergy); the priest then begins with a collect (a special prayer); following the collect, everyone sits for the first reading, a psalm, and a second reading; then, everyone stands for a hymn, and the Gospel reading; next everyone sits for the priest’s sermon; after the sermon comes the Nicene Creed, prayers, confession, and the exchanging of peace; this is followed by the communion; after communion the celebrant and congregation say a prayer of thanksgiving, and everyone stands for a recessional hymn; then the service ends with a dismissal to which the congregation replies, “Thanks be to God”. Attention to sequential structure demonstrates how discourse is not a meaningless string of words, but rather is interactional, and has intentions and purpose.
Key, also sometimes called frame, refers to what the participants in a face-to-face interaction are doing when they speak (Sauzmann, 254). “Acts otherwise the same as regards setting participants, message form, and the like may differ in key as, e.g., between mock [and] serious or perfunctory [and] painstaking”(Salzmann, 252). When studying language discourse it is important to pay attention to who is directing the mood, and how the mood is being controlled. Some words carry strong, emotional and social values, and failure to recognize such connotations can lead to offensive misinterpretation.
Instrumentalities refers to agencies of speaking and consists both of channels (the transmission of speech: oral, written, telegraphic, semaphore, etc.) and forms of speech (Hymes, 58, 60). With regard to channels, one must further distinguish modes of use. Among the Ashanti, the acoustic channel is diverse: Twi is their verbal language, characterized by give distinctive tones; the ceremonial language priests and priestesses use is a sub-code that Ashanti laypeople cannot understand; the language of the ghosts, cooing noises, is intelligible only to unborn babies and toothless infants; drum code, horn code, and gong code are used to convey messages and signals; and whistling is recognized as being used by the forest fairies and monsters who instruct the Ashanti’s medicine men (Salzmann, 250). How something is being said is part of what is said.
Norms refers to the social rules that govern the event and the participants’ actions and reaction. Norms vary from culture to culture, and within a single society. If the society is socially or ethnically diversified, not all members are likely to use the same rules of interaction and the same norms of interpretation (Salzmann, 252). When norms are shared, there is less room for misinterpretation and tension among individuals. For example, in a study done at the University of Colorado among male students from Arabic-speaking countries and male students from the United States, Michael Watson and Theodore Graves (1966:976-979) found that “Arabs confronted each other more directly than Americans when conversing…They sat closer to each other…[and] were more likely to touch each other…They looked each other more squarely in the eye…and…conversed more loudly than Americans…Persons from the various Arab countries [appeared to] be more similar to each other than to any regional group of Americans” (Salzmann, 254). Due to the fact that American communicative behavior is different than that of various Arab countries, misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding
Lastly, Genre refers to the type of speech act or event. Members of a speech community recognize genres as having beginnings, middles, and ends, and as being patterned. For example, the end of a joke is the punch line, often a pun – typically this is a stupid response by one of the characters showing that the character is lacking in some basic social knowledge or one in which the social meaning of an utterance is ignored and its literal meaning is taken instead (Clark, 277). An old Beetle Bailey cartoon illustrates a clear example: Sarge says to Zero “The wastebasket is full.” Instead of emptying the basket, Zero responds “Even I can see that” (Clark, 277). This demonstrates how words can be taken at face value rather than their intended interpretation.
My Kantian Cat
For Hymes, speech cannot be separated from the sociological and cultural factors that help shape linguistic form and create meaning. Each person is the author of her own life; an author, when writing a piece of fiction, creates a narrative thread. Particular elements and techniques of writing lead the created characters to have certain experiences and commit certain acts. These narrative threads weave the characters’ individual world views (cultural norms) together and create the overall story. Does the author ever place herself in the story? The fact that the author stops to read her work before continuing on to further develop the plot line is enough evidence to say yes, the author is placing herself in this fictional life. These same techniques can be applied to one’s waking reality. The people, gestures, and moments an individual experiences on a daily basis make one’s life story and shape one’s language. The way one perceives and speaks about life and the way sequences of events play out works the same way an author perceives how his novel will develop. In both situations one is aware of reality because one has a consistent perspective.
[1] Salzmann, Zdenek. Language, Culture, & [and] Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder: Westview, 1993. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Salzmann, p#).
[2] Clark, Virginia P., Paul A. Eschholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. Language: Introductory Readings. New York: St. Martin’s, 1977. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Clark, p#).
[3] Hymes, Dell H. Foundations in Sociolinguistics; an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Hymes, p#).
Metaphor: Making the Abstract Concrete and Visual 