PSYC358: Midterm #1 Flashcards
Discourse analysis
Approach to studying psychological phenomena (developed in 70s and 80s)
Developed out of social psych + social constructionism
Examines language in use (not psychological factors like attitudes, memory, emotions etc which underlie talk)
Looks at text, convo, visual communication
How language organizes the world/behaviour/identity
Two parts of discourse analysis examination
1- CONSTRUCTION: language is constructing (not mirroring) reality
2- FUNCTION + SOCIAL ACTION: people use language to achieve goals in specific contexts
Discourses (discourse analysis)
Systems of meaning that are related to the intersectional and wider sociocultural context; operate regardless of the speakers intentions
Other parts of discourse analysis
- variability in people’s accounts
- rhetorical aspects/functions of talk
- context of interaction
- subject positions (has consequences for sense of self and experiences of subjects)
- institutions (legitimize and maintain social practices)
- power
Common views of discourse theorists
Social constructionism (reality/identity systematically constructed and maintained through systems of meaning and through social practices) Relativist view (no objective grounds on which truth of claims can be proven; value of knowledge should be evaluated through criteria like applicability, usefulness, clarity) OR critical realist view bc other view social critique (knowledge mediated by social processes but propose underlying enduring structures do exist and can be known through their effects)
Language as a mirror (metaphor)
Language = reflecting reality
Language as a construction yard (metaphor)
Language = used to construct versions of things, people, ideas and events
Words aren’t neutral
Category entitlement (tools for building a speaker’s credibility)
When you give certain categories more credibility with what they say because of their title (ex: believing everything a doctor says about health)
Concession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Provided by speakers when they outwardly acknowledge potential counter-claims
This makes what they say sound more reasonable and robust because they considered both sides
Consensus (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Transforming a description into a “fact” by producing agreement of reliable witnesses
Disclaimer (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Explicitly denying a stance or opinion a speaker subsequently advocates (I’m not racist but… I’m not sexist but…)
Footing (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker can either put themselves as the source of info that they are presenting or relay it as someone else’s message to shift responsibility
Stake management (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A version of events could be undermined of the speaker can be shown to have a vested interest in the particular account they provide (parent says their kid is gifted - other parent says of course because all parents think their kids are gifted!)
Stake confession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker acknowledges their vested interest (I know I’m his dad and all dads are proud but he really was special today)
Stake inoculation (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Speaker rebuts the potential claim that they have a stake even before they are challenged on it (at first, I was sceptical about the new cream bc it seemed too good to be true, but it actually works!)
Active voicing (tools for building the case)
Use of a direct quote from another source to make the reporting of their words seem more reliable
Categorization (tools for building the case)
When a speaker offers a description, choices are available to them about how to name or categorize their subject and their choice can make a difference on how they’re perceived (terrorist vs freedom fighter)
Detail (tools for building the case)
Builds specificity and presents an account as informed, reliable and accurate
Vagueness (tools for building the case)
Supports broad claims and it’s difficult to ‘pin down’ or undermine
Generalizations (tools for building the case)
Allows a speaker to stretch a particular interpretation across an indefinite number of instances (girls used to fall for him and then he would just dump them)
Gerrymanding (tools for building the case)
Means offering selective description of something that includes particular details as relevant while ignoring others that don’t support your argument
Intention-promoting verbs (tools for building the case)
Certain verbs can be chosen to make intention explicit (James tripped so his team lost VS James helped the team lose)
Making evidence ‘speak for itself’ (tools for building the case)
A speaker can increase the credibility of their evidence by presenting it as obvious; downplays their role in collecting/interpreting it and personifies the evidence as though it makes the case (ex: it’s obvious that… The facts show… Etc)
Maximization and minimization (tools for building the case)
Used for emphasis or de-emphasis (to establish blame or to downplay accountability)
Extreme case formulation (tools for building the case)
Extreme version of maximization and minimization; exaggerates (ex: she never listens to me)
Nominalisation (tools for building the case)
Changing of verbs into nouns in a sentence (goal: avoid mentioning those who performed the action, avoid enabling responsibility)
Ex: police killed rioters -> the killing was sad
Passive voice
Like nominalisation, used to avoid mentioning subject of verb (ex: the rioters were killed instead of the police killed the rioters)
Pronoun selection (tools for building the case)
Pronouns are words that stand in the place of nouns, and careful selection of these can be an easy way for speakers to include or exclude themselves or others from what they’re saying (calling aboriginals “them” shows them as different than “us”)
Rhetorically self-sufficient arguments (tools for building the case)
Common sense arguments that are acceptable to a listener without further justification; safe ground for a speaker cause the audience will usually agree
Ex: injustices should be righted
Statistics (tools for building the case)
Using numerical representations is not neutral process
Statistics may be selected to support particular arguments
Ex: presenting a number like “284,000 jobs” instead of “2.5% increase in jobs”
Repetition (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Used to emphasize and evoke emotion
Rhetorical questions (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Used to make a point which is so obvious it does not require an answer (sarcastic), raise an issue which the speaker will answer themselves or to encourage the listener to reflect on the question in their own mind
Three-part list (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Lists of three sound complete, satisfying and convincing
Three reasons to study language
1- practical reasons (help people with speech pathologies, problems with learning, reading)
2- window on larger theoretical questions (explain nature of language and its acquisition for example)
3- from an analytical view: to describe what is usually ignored regarding everyday use of lang, to see how people co-construct meaning in their everyday lives, what implicit rules we use are often unexamined
Formal vs communication language view groups
Formal: linguists, psycholinguists, neuro-linguists
Communicative: sociolinguists, social psych, sociology
Definition of language from linguists, psycholinguists and sociolinguists
Linguists: look at structure or mechanics; definition=a system of symbols or rules for combining these symbols in a potentially infinite number of ways
Psycholinguists (cog psych, neuro-linguistics): how people understand, produce and acquire language (some overlap with sociolinguistics)
Sociolinguists/pragmatists: definition=coordination of meaning between different people, focus on use and what people mean inexplicitly (before grammar)
Five main levels of analysis recognized in linguistics
Grammar: systematic characterization of all the rules and principles that govern language
Phonetics/phonology: set of sounds and sound patterns a language makes use of
Syntax: arrangement of words in a sentence and the study of the rules that govern the formation of a proper sentence
Semantics: all about meaning
Morphology: study of the principles governing the construction of complex words and how words are formed
Five pragmatic aspects of language
1- PROSODY: audible qualities of speech; patterns of intonation, stress, tone can change meanings
2- PHATIC: social functions of talk
3- GESTURE: how gesture and speech work together
4- PHOXEMICS: distance and how it factors into social interaction
5- RELATIONSHIPS: changes in the words we use, the structure of our talk
Discourse analysis: micro level vs larger level
Micro level: includes aspects like style, rhythm, stress, intonation, phatic expressions (you’re welcome, politeness, small talk), discourse markers (expressions like well, but, y’know), speech acts, pauses, raised voice, etc
Larger level: political discourse (ex: discourse of racism and denial), media discourse, family discourse, etc
What is the social psych/discourse analysis view on people’s intentions?
People’s intentions/cognitions are secondary because we can intend all we want, but unless we say the right thing to the right person on the right occasion, intentions don’t matter; successful discourse is jointly produced
Rhetoric
Another example of language in use (focus on how, but also issues of who, why (intention), where)
Definitions of rhetoric reflect its uneasy history
Means speech/discourse that pretends significance but lacks true meaning; undue use of exaggeration or display versus the art and skill of using speech and writing to persuade and influence; purposeful effective argumentation
Platonic vs sophist definition of rhetoric
Platonic: negative -> mere artifice, artificial, decorative
Sophists: positive -> the art of persuasion separates us from wild animals
**no single definition (performance or practice)
The three appeals that rhetor makes to audience
1- LOGOS: reasoning, use of logic
2- ETHOS: credibility of author/narrator, ethical knowledgable, believable
3- PATHOS: emotions, creates sympathy for rhetor’s idea
Three parts to understanding persona
1- VOICE: rhetoricians tone/attitude affects if and how the audience will believe what is being communicated- word choice, syntax, choice of ideas and details
2- PURPOSE: intention of rhetorician, what do they want to change in the audience?
3- EXIGENCE: what situation is demanding the rhetorician to speak/write
What are aristotle’s three divisions of rhetoric?
Aristotle’s three divisions of rhetoric:
1- FORENSIC: court; arguments require verdicts on past action
2- DELIBERATIVE: political; seeks judgement on future action
3- EPIDEITIC: praise of the dead/ceremonial; concerns values associated with praise or blame and seeks no specific decisions
11 forms of denial
1- positive self presentation (I may be this but I am not that)
2- act denial (I did not do or say that)
3- control denial (I didn’t do that on purpose, it was an accident)
4- intention denial (I didn’t mean to say that, you got me wrong)
5- goal denial (I did not say that in order to…)
6- topics (focus on difference, deviation)
7- story telling (I worked with black people so I’m not a racist)
8- focus on difference (pointing out the difference between two groups)
9- justifications (multiculturalism brought us all the problems)
10- positive/negative comparisons
11- reversal (we have to learn to be intolerant to those who are intolerant of us)
The first attempt to raise a chimpanzee as a human to invoke language
WINTHROP KELLOGG + GUA
- raised 7 and a half month old chimp with his son Donald (10 mos)
- controversial
- at one year old: could respond to verbal commands
- never learned to speak
- experiment abandoned after 9 mos
Anatomical diffs between apes and humans that effect speech
Humans:
- more tongue flexibility
- larynx lower in our throats
First research attempt at teaching apes sign language
WASHOE
- chimpanzee born in west Africa then brought to the USA
- Allen and Beatrix Gardner (psychologists) adopted her in the 60s
- raised as a child
- learned 250+ signs and reportedly coined new words (water bird for swan)
Koko the gorilla
Loaned to a grad student for her dissertation and ended up keeping her
- has a book
- celebrity meetings
- sad about robin Williams’s death
Kanzi the bonobo
Born in a primate center
- dominant female adopted him
- took interest in learning lexigrams when his adopted mom didn’t (lexigrams=symbols on a keyboard)
- lexigram vocabulary of 400 symbols
- invents new words by combining symbols, refers to past/present events and understands other POV (apparently)
Differences between the way humans use language and apes use language
1- different motivation (apes=less convo, more using language to get what they want)
2- apes language could be elicited by researchers
3- abilities are exaggerated
Chomsky’s perspective on language
NATIVIST: language is unique to humans bc linguistic structure maps onto the way the human brain works; animals using language makes no biological sense
Hocket’s (1960) 12 design features of language
1- creative, novel, open, productive
2- generative (finite set of rules can be used to create an infinite number of sentences)
3- duality of patterning (single sounds have no meaning but together have meaning)
4- embedded in tradition (passed down thru cultures)
5- rule bound
6- arbitrary (words don’t matter but syntax does)
7- auditory channel
8- semantics
9- spontaneous
10- involves turn taking
11- displacement (ability to refer to things from different times or places)
12- discreetness (sounds can be categorized and differ)
Viki (language experiment)
1940-50s
Hayseed tried to raise Viki in their home
6 years=words mama, papa, cup, up
Is chimp signing actually language?
- can combine words in new ways to convey meaning (Washoe)
- chimps don’t pick up words as easily as human kids do
- chimp word production lacks syntax
- bonobo can understand “make the dog bite the snake”
Nim Chimsky
ASL Actively molded Nim's hands Learned about 100 signs and combos Could only put together short utterances which were usually to do with food Repeated himself a lot Imitations Syntax was different than humans Lacked turn taking
Sarah (language to apes)
Metal chips on a board with colour, shape, meanings, and rules for ordering chips
After training could produce “Mary give apple Sarah”
Lana (teaching apes language)
Used lexigram (abstract symbols that can be combined according to a grammar that operates over semantically based categories) She could produce rote learned sequences related to eating, etc followed by reward
What did Rambaugh argue about Kanzi?
Rambaugh argues that Kanzi has referential ability
Based on many contexts
Ex: used lexigram strawberry when he wanted to go where they are picked, wanted one to eat, and when shown a photo