[Xmca-l] Re: That on That

[Rod Parker-Rees]

David,

On the question of 'experiencing our own words', I have been interested in the extent to which we are also able to experience other people through our experience of what they do to how we speak. The various adjustments which we make, in the timing and rhythm of our speaking, our intonation and accent and even our interpersonal timing and distance, are directly and physically experienced and therefore available (albeit largely unconsciously) to our memory of what interactions with this person feel like. I believe (and I am sure you will know much more about this) that linguists vary in terms of how much of this 'instancial', situation specific context can or should be acknowledged in analyses of interactions. While much can be read from the traces of interaction which can be captured on paper, there is also much that is lost. Learning to read and write also seems to shift our attention so that what can be recorded becomes more significant, more thinkable and more important than the more person/situation specific, evanescent context which, however, may be particularly 'telling' when it comes to making sophisticated social judgements about what someone MEANT by what they said.

And of course, it may be that some people's social judgments are less sophisticated than others'.

All the best,

Rod





-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: 03 February 2018 00:40
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] That on That

 When most of us speak, we try to "home in" on context--that is, we try to listen to what we are saying not only from the point of view of the speaker but also from the point of view of the hearer--who is part of the context of situation--and we therefore try to elaborate, to exend, and to enhance what we are saying from that point of view. Because speaking is a process of realizing or completing thinking--not simply expressing some thought that exists already in the mind--this process of transition from the speaker's point of view to that of the hearer can be traced in the lexicogrammar through what Halliday calls the textual metafunction.
There are two systems which govern the textual metafunction--which allow us to turn our own words into an experiencing of our own words. One is the system of Theme which is mostly realized in word order, and the other is the system of Information which is largely realized through tonic stress).
In word order, the speaker must manage a transition from Theme (the starting point of the speaker) to Rheme (the endpoint, where the speaker hands over to the hearer. In stress, the speaker must go from unstressed from Given (information that is shared with the hearer) to stressed New (information which is being shared). The variation between "a" and "the" which Rod noted is just one example of this double transition: If I say "once upon a time there was a man (stressed); the man (unstressed) was a president", then "a man" is Rheme, and New iinformation in the first clause, but it is Theme and Given information in the second). Another example is the difference between "it" which can be used as Theme and as Given, and "that" which is used for Rheme and New: we can say "Look at THAT!" but we say "LOOK at it!"
There are some interesting exceptions to this rule, though. That is, there are people who cannot seem to home in on context--who do not listen to themselves speak and do not manage to auto-adjust by taking in the hearer's point of view. As a consequence, they do not become more coherent as they speak, but less so.  Here's an example.
"I think the me—I think it’s terrible. You wanna know the truth? I think it’s a disgrace. What’s going on in this country. I think it’s a disgrace.
The memo was sent to…Congress; it was declassified; Congress will do whatever…they’re going to do, but I think it’s a disgrace what’s happening in our country. And when you look at that and you see that and so many other things what’s (sic) going on….uh lotta people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that. So I sent it over to Congress; they will do whatever they’re going to do; whatever they do is…fine; it was declassified and let’s see what happens. But a lot of people should be ashamed. Thank you very much."
The speaker begins with the most common theme in English: "I". There is nothing particularly "egocentric" about this: it naturally follows on from the question  which the hearer just asked the speaker. But when the speaker arrives at the Rheme, which should be "memo", something happens. "It" is indicative--it should refer to the memo. So it appears that the speaker is saying that the memo is terrible. But that wasn't actually what the speaker meant. The speaker tries, heroically, to take the hearer point of view in the next clause, with an empty phrase "You wanna know the truth". But he then follows this up with a statement which, if we follow the chain of endoporic reference, actually says that the memo is a disgrace. In order to avoid this implicature, the speaker avoids "homing in" on context and instead makes it broader--what's going on in this country." But then back to the memo. You must say something about the memo, because that was what the question was about. So you say something that is actually entirely Given information--without any New at all. But the hearer is expecting something New. One must say something new. So "That". "That on That".

David Kellogg

Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'

Free e-print available (for a short time only) at

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>

This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.