[From Bill Powers (2008.03.06.1430 MST)]
Bruce Nevin (2008.03.05 2141 EST) --
Bill Powers (2008.03) --
> > I suppose the same way you learn to speak French
> > when you're in France (if you can).I think what you mean by that is a concerted effort to learn French
while you're in France.
No, I just meant that if you know French, and go to France or any place where everyone is speaking French, you switch to French. You speak as those around you are speaking, so you sound to yourself the same way they sound to you. I do that to be understood -- but not in French.
These are differences that one does not typically mount a
concerted effort to learn the way one sets out to learn a foreign
language.
Right. I'm not arguing against you here.
Bill Powers (2008.03) --
> > I think the emphasis on "unconscious" is unnecessary.When learning this socalled "code switching" from one "register" to
another the attention is on higher levels of control of at least two
sorts of perceptions. One is meanings and confirmation that you have
replicated the intended information among your own CVs. Another is a
perception that we are related as peers.
But "that we are related as peers" is something other than a linguistic concern; it's a psychological concern that influences the way we use language but also many other things. Some people are more concerned than others are about being like their peers (middle school girls, I can attest, are exceedingly concerned about all aspects of being like their peers).
If one person persists in
holding to a formal and "correct" way of talking while the other is
speaking in "homebody" way that is an assertion that they are not peers.
I believe it is error in control of peer relationships and "belonging"
that drives reorganization of the manner of speaking, "body language,"
and other variables of personal style.
I agree with you. The overriding concern here is belonging, or the deeper reasons for which people think they have to belong. Language is just one means to that end; there are many others. And I would argue that errors in belonging are far from the only things that drive reorganizations in the manner of speaking. The desire to communicate clearly and be understood correctly is another; the enjoyment of language skill and play is also a strong reason.
Attention is focused on the
higher levels where error occurs, and the lower levels where
reorganization is taking place are out of awareness.
Yes, I'm sure this does happen. My supposition, however, is that while reorganization probably does go on (when there is error) at all levels in and out of awareness, it works the most rapidly where awareness is focused.
There may be a
generalization here about attention drawn to error at a higher level
triggering reorganization of lower-level means of control to which
attention is not directed because it is directed to the higher level
where the error occurs.
I think it more likely that reorganization is intensified at the levels where awareness is engaged. If a person realizes that his painful need for belonging is itself the problem, he might reorganize at that level, and not need to conform so compulsively to what his peers are doing, saying, owning, feeling, and so on. Reorganizing at a level lower than the level where the problem is caused just changes the way the problem is being experienced, without solving it.
Bill Powers (2008.03) --
> > The higher-lower dimension is suggested by which aspects of
> > speech are varied as a means of controlling higher-order
> > aspects of experience. One can use various learned systems
> > for producing specific speech patterns, but the choice of
> > which learned pattern to use when interacting with different
> > people would be a higher-order matter.A bit of a misunderstanding here, and entirely my fault, because I did
not include enough in that statement. The word "these" refers to systems
controlling perceptions like distinctness, syllable prosody, intonation
prosody, and manner of speaking in parallel, each as means for
controlling higher-level perceptions including information replication
in the recipient ("meanings"), peer/non-peer relationships, and attitude
toward the information (including emotions).
OK, I think we see eye-to-eye about that.
You switched the attributions in the two following segments:
Bill Powers (2008.03) -- [ actually written by Nevin]
> >The cultural norms that we are talking about are very distinct as
> >observable descriptive data. People consistently make them distinct.
> >That's how culture works.Bruce Nevin (2008.03.01.1601) -- [ actually written by Powers]
> Well, I'd say that's how reorganization works, but I agree
> that at these lower levels, observations can be more
> reliable. I think I said that.
I'm glad you now agree that at these lower levels which I am talking
about (and whose references are set in processes of reorganization due
to error at higher levels, and therefore not in awareness) observation
is acceptably reliable.
I think I always did agree about lower-level observations being less uncertain than higher-level ones. "Acceptably" is a matter of the load you're going to ask a deduction to bear.
I would press this farther and ask your agreement that observation is
more reliable than "just asking" and that "just asking" directly about
such variables is unreliable.
I don't think you know what I mean by "just asking." I mean engaging the other person in a systematic investigation of that person's experiences, rather than just starting with your own subjective impressions and trying to judge what the other person is perceiving and controlling by looking at what you would be perceiving and controlling if you were doing the same low-level things. The information you need the most is not available in what you can see or hear of the other person from outside.
It is unreliable because the asking calls
attention to these lower-level variables are the means of controlling
higher-level perceptions of social status, peer relationship in
conversation, etc.
I understand why, as scientific investigations normally are conducted, calling attention to lower-level variables can change the behavior by raising other higher-level issues (like "what does this experimenter think of me?"). The kind of calling attention I am speaking of wouldn't raise such issues, or if it did, that effect would become a topic of discussion and would be resolved so it no longer interfered. "Just asking" does not mean just throwing out standardized questions without regard to what the person thinks of them, or of being asked. It means using skillful techniques designed to get people to examine and report on what is actually happening inside them. I doubt very much that such skills are taught and practiced as part of a normal linguistics (or any other) curriculum. Developing them is the essence of the method of levels.
Try it some time. Notice some peculiarity of pronunciation, and ask the
person why they pronounce "house" (or whatever) that way. Imitate their
pronunciation to make your point. Unless they have made a study of the
matter they are very unlikely to be able to give an informative answer.
Of course. That is not a productive way to ask about such things. If you have only ten or twenty minutes to spend with a person in investigating a pronunciation, you would be better off to use it for something else.
Very likely your conversation with them will become awkward and
uncomfortable. Why are you shifting the topic from the interesting
information we were talking about to the way I pronounce "house"? This
doesn't feel like a peer relationship. How do you pronounce that word,
yourself? What does the difference mean, and in particular what are you
inferring about me and my kind of people vs. you and your kind of people
from this difference in pronunciation? And so on. Not a simple question
at all!
Yes, and every objection relates to a topic of concern to the other person, which needs to be acknowledged and dealt with before pressing on to the objective (if you can even get there). Among other things, I might start by saying, "I notice that the way you say 'house' is different from the way I say it. Could we talk about that for a while, a little later? I'm interested in finding out how people's pronunciations get started."
Some adaptation of MOL process (with prior agreement, of course) might
confirm this in a way that you would regard as more reliable -- When I
asked you about how you pronounce "house", what occurred for you? How
did you feel? What's behind that?
First I'd make sure the other person is aware of a difference from the way other people say it, and what the person thinks about the difference. Then I might ask who are the people who say it the same way, and who are the ones who say it differently? Do those differences tell you anything about the people? If you try to say it the other way, does it feel strange or awkward? Go ahead and try it -- what goes on inside when you do?
But one can't really predict how the questioning would go. You have to follow the trail where it leads.
Sorry to be so slow responding. Healing this shoulder surgery slows down
work and interferes with sleep.
Shoulder surgery? I think you forgot to mention that. My sympathies, very much.
Best,
Bill P.
···
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1315 - Release Date: 3/6/2008 9:07 AM