Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Linguistics > AtL Test 2 > Flashcards

AtL Test 2 Flashcards

1
Q

The two key focuses in pragmatics

A

Speech acts (Austin)
Implicatures (Grice)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Constative sentences

A

Sentences that say something that might be true or false (i.e. have truth conditions) e.g. it’s raining

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Performative sentences

A

Sentences that ‘do’ something e.g. promise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

locutionary act

A

the act of uttering a sentence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Illocutionary force

A

What the utterance of the performative sentence does

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Felicity conditions

A

Conditions that specify what makes a speech act work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Perlocutionary effects

A

results of a speech act e.g. being under obligation (promise)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Example: felicity conditions for asking questions

A
  1. you don’t know the answer
  2. the person you’re asking has a reasonable chance of knowing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Grice’s co-operative principle

A

Presupposition that people want to cooperate when they exchange meaning. Regulated by Four conversational maxims - principle of rational interaction (requiring good faith) - as a listener we assume speakers obey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The Gricean maxims

A
  1. Maxim of Quality (be truthful)
  2. Maxim of Quantity (be brief - not too much/little)
  3. Maxim of Relation (be relevant)
  4. Maxim of Manner (be clear)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Maxim of quality

A

sarcasm will violate this

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Theory of Mind

A

the ability to think about and recognise someone else’s intentions, thoughts and beliefs, recognising they are different from your own

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Implicature

A

utterance that conveys meaning beyond its proposition (semantic meaning)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

3 kinds of implicature

A
  1. Conventional implicatures
  2. Generalised conversational implicatures (employ cooperative principle)
  3. Particular conversational implicatures (employ cooperative principle)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Conventional implicatures

A

Words that, by convention, have extra meanings e.g. “some” or “but” - CI that there is contrast

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Generalised conversational implicatures

A

Only loosely context-bound: illocutionary force is disguised e.g. can you pass the salt? - violates the cooperative principle (relevance), so must be related to something els - commonly used therefore generalised.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Particular conversational implicatures

A

We apply them as and when the situation demands i.e. “on the fly” e.g. A: Do you want to go to the cinema? B: My little sister is coming for a visit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

scalar implicatures

A

We denote a degree of something, thereby implicating the negation of all degrees above this chosen degree (likewise truth of all degrees below)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Canonical Declarative sentence illocutionary acts

A

Can be assertion, promise or declaration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Canonical Interrogative illocutionary acts

A

yes/no polar questions, wh-question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Canonical imperative illocutionary act

A

command

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Three areas of historical linguistics

A
  1. correspondences among languages
  2. systematic sound changes
  3. reconstructing lost languages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Systematic sound correspondence

A

Sound correspondence that occurs in every instance e.g. wherever there’s a <th> in English, there’s a <d> in German // wherever Spanish has single non-initial consonant, Italian has a double (<p> and <pp>)</pp></d>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Proto West Germanic family

A

English, Dutch, German

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Latin family

A

Romanian, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Proto Indo-European

A

parent of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, proto-germanic (north, East, West)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Grimm’s law and First Germanic sound shift (1)

A

First sound shift: voiceless stops correspond to voiceless fricatives at almost the same place of articulation.
IndoE /t/ –> German /th/
IndoE /p/ –> German /f/
IndoE /k/ –> German /h/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Grimm’s law and First Germanic sound shift (2)

A

First sound shift: initial voiced stops correspond to Germanic voiceless
IndoE /d/ - German /t/
IndoE /g/ - German /k/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Second Germanic sound shift

A

Correspondence between Eng voiceless stops and combo stop/fric except in velars
Eng /p/ - German /pf/
Eng /t/ - German /ts/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Exception to Grimm’s law (later explained by Verner’s law)

A

Lat /pater/ –> fader
Lat /frater/ –> brothor

Per Grimm’s law we expect <th> in fader.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Verner’s law

A

Grimm’s law doesn’t hold where the consonant begins a syllable following an unstressed syllable according to the original stress pattern. In that case, different correspondence:
IndoE /t/ –> Germanic /d/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Consonant shift and stress shift

A
  1. 2 consonant shifts (vless stop-fricative, voiced - vless, 2nd P/T - pf/ts)
  2. germanic changed all stresses to initial stress

We can tell order because if stress first, then father/brother same consonant change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Comparative reconstruction aka “the comparative method”

A

technique of recovering languages for which we have no or incomplete records, indicated by *. We use:
1. Phonemes (as in Grimm/Verner)
2. morphemes
3. other relevant information e.g. syntax, orthography

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Steps to answer questions about systematic sound changes

A
  1. Look at manner, place of articulation.
  2. Is the change consistent? Is there a pattern?
    No exceptions allowed - must exclude loanwords e.g. numbers, body parts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Other possible patterns in language change

A

Grammaticalisation:
1. Change from open-class to closed class
2. Verbs turning into aspect markers

36
Q
  1. Open-class to closed class
A

open = accept new words, express meaning independently
closed = don’t really accept new words.
e.g.
oldE /lic/ (form or body) –> ly (meaning bleached)
/willan/ –> will (lost desire meaning, now just auxiliary)

37
Q

Semantic bleaching

A

meaning becomes broader or more abstract, e.g. will an - loses desire to be future marker. Can go with phonological reduction e.g. ‘ll

38
Q
  1. Verbs become aspect markers
A

For example “going to” semantic bleaching

39
Q

Why do words grammaticalise

A
  1. metaphorical thinking (physically passing similar to experience)
  2. pragmatic inferences - e.g. I am going - implies future
  3. morphosyntactic reanalysis e.g. will and shall – used to be inflected, but lost over time.
  4. language contact
40
Q

Consequences of language contact

A
  1. We may result in multiple ways to say the same thing e.g. lawful and legal (Germanic, Latinate)
  2. Word order e.g. dative alternation only with certain words e.g. gave versus donated (X)
  3. pidginisation, creolisation, language mixing, borrowing, code switching
41
Q

Pidgins

A

Created to facilitate communication between speakers of two languages e.g. bazaar Malay - no native speakers, rule governed

42
Q

Creoles

A

combination of two languages, with native speakers and more elaborate grammars. The two parent languages may be otherwise totally unrelated

43
Q

Lexifier

A

If a language contributes the majority of lexical items - superstrate

44
Q

Substrate

A

if a language contributes the grammarIf

45
Q

Adstrate

A

if no obvious superstate or substrate - the two languages may be totally unrelated

46
Q

correlations morphology and syntax

A

often, with simpler morphology, correlation with complicated syntax e.g. Russian - complex morphology e.g. case, gender, aspect, but free word order.

47
Q

Three areas of sociolinguistics

A
  1. Accents of English
  2. Social stratification of speech (Labov and trudgill)
  3. Negation in non-standard E
48
Q

Isogloss

A

line we draw on a map to separate variants e.g. the foot/strut split in England

49
Q

Social value of variants

A

Arbitrary ascription of social value to pronunciation e.g. Britsh vs AmE different rhotic prestige

50
Q

Labov (1972) on rhoticity

A

Saks (upmarket), Macy’s and S. Klein (downmarket). Elicited ‘fourth floor’ Incidence of rhoticity reflected social cachet of department store - awareness of overt prestige and hypercorrection

51
Q

Labov hypercorrection overt prestige

A

Overuse of prestige form - most common at Macy’s the middle store - middle-class women show highest incidence of hypercorrection and therefore greatest sensitivity to overt prestige (i.e. women more conservative)

52
Q

Overt prestige

A

linguistic features associated with dominant group in a society

53
Q

Covert prestige

A

Speakers use low-prestige forms to distinguish their social or regional identity e.g. nonrhotic forms at S. Klein - most common amongst middle and working class male speakers

54
Q

Trudgill (1970s)

A

Norwich -ing as -in’: found class more of a determiner of non-standard usage than gender, though women more likely to use overt prestige forms i.e. standard, esp. in careful speech

55
Q

Negative concord

A

negation whereby several bits of the sentence are negated at once e.g. I ain’t done nothing or je n’ai rien fait

56
Q

Key purpose of sociolinguistics compared with e.g. CDA

A

Social distinctions detected (by applying scientific method) in language use (predictability)

57
Q

Eckert 2000

A

Burnouts (working class) vs Jocks (tend middle) - students can switch between categories depending on occasion

58
Q

Northern Cities Shift

A

vowel sound realisation change

59
Q

Diglossia and diglossic language

A

Where there are multiple varieties of one language e.g. Japanese - low, med, high - there is never mixing of the features of these varieties They are used in certain occasions

60
Q

hyperarticulation

A

realisation of features indexes certain stances and characteristics - when code switching, speakers emphasise certain stances, perhaps to index certain associations

61
Q

Semiosis / Semiotics

A

study of how symbols are used meaningfully

62
Q

Discourse

A

language in action - no such thing as ‘non-social’ use of discourse.

63
Q

Fairclough’s distinctions (3)

A
  1. Description of material
  2. Participants’ interpretation
  3. REsearcher’s explanation of interpretative procedures
64
Q

Potential problems with CDA

A

Blommaert:
1. Fuzzy or weak theory
2. Might just demonstrate the obvious
3. Researcher biases in interpretation and analysis
4. Forgotten discourse - certain kinds of discourses not considered - focus on “North” societies lack of generalisability

65
Q

Voice

A

complex with various definitions (Bakhtin 1981) Blommaert - the way people manage to make themselves understood or fail to do so - capacity to cause an uptake close to one’s desired contextualisation

66
Q

How can we categorise varieties of English

A

a) channel of communication e.g. spoken
b) geographically identified dialects
c) socially identified sociolects
d) situationally or domain-id varieties e.g. dinner table conversation
e) styles, genres, formats e.g. formal vs informal

67
Q

5 key points of Blommaert

A
  1. Focus on what language means to its users
  2. Language operates differently in different environments
  3. Focus is actual contextualised forms in which language occurs in society
  4. users have repertoires
  5. communication events are influenced by the structure of the world system
68
Q

Blommaert’s ethnography

A

analysis of small phenomena is set against analysis of big phenomena

69
Q

Contextualisation

A

the ways people ‘make sense’ in interactions - become meaningful - considering something in relation to the real context in which it occurs - so misplacing utterances in contexts results in misunderstandings or conflict - performed by recipient - analysis is a form of contextualisation

70
Q

Entextualisation

A

2 processes: decontextualisation and recontextualisation - extract from context and re-set in a new context e.g. re-tweets with commentary

71
Q

Intertextuality

A

when we speak, we constantly cite and re-cite expressions.

72
Q

Ethnocentrism

A

evaluation of others according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one’s own culture.

73
Q

Aphasia

A

language disorders arising as the result of brain damage. Two types:
1. Broca’s aphasia
2. Wernicke’s aphasia

74
Q

Broca’s aphasia

A

aka expressive aphasia / agrammatic aphasia has: 1. halting speech
2. functional categories missing e.g. auxiliaries and determiners
3. missing inflections and other morphology
4. disturbances to intonation and stress
5. Generative capacity for syntax is disturbed - confuse passives and actives

75
Q

Wernicke’s aphasia

A

fluent and in control of grammar e.g. auxiliaries inflections. However, speech doesn’t make sense
1. lexical words e.g. nouns missing (paraphrased in confusing ways)
2. trouble understanding others and their own speech

76
Q

Neurolinguistic perspective of Broca and Wernicke’s aphasics

A

Damage is to different parts of the brain:
1. Broca - Broca’s area - structural
2. Wernicke - Wernicke’s area - lexical

77
Q

Internal (I) language

A

internal to the individual - property of the mind or brain - psycholinguistics

78
Q

External (E) language

A

language property of societies and cultures - sociolinguistics

79
Q

Competence

A

Ability to control aspects of language structure - pure linguistic abilities

80
Q

Performance

A

Actually speaking and understanding e.g. memory, concentration, theory of mind etc.

81
Q

Processing lexical ambiguity

A

Swinney 1979 - bugs - priming lexical decision experiment - we access multiple interpretations of an ambiguous word, then choose. We have expectations that come from preceding words in the sentence - process incrementally

82
Q

N400

A

negative wave observed 400ms after word is presented - indicates that brain processing something unexpected

83
Q

McGurk effect

A

your perception of sound is affected by what you see

84
Q

FMRI

A

measures blood flow and changes in oxygen levels - changes magnetic properties around the brain

85
Q

Magnetoencephalography

A

neural activity – electric current – changes in magnetic field around brain

Linguistics (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions