- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
Comprehension and context:successfu
Comprehension and context:
successful communication and
communicative breakdown
Lesley Milroy
Introduction
The major theoretical issue to which this paper addresses itself is the
manner in which hearers use a combination of linguistic knowledge, knowledge
of a heterogeneous range of factors which broadly might be called
"contextual", and various perceptual strategies when they interpret utterances
in context. This issue is approached using methods familiar in sociolinguistics;
that is, the data base is real utterances as they are spoken in their
social context rather than constructed data intuitively interpreted. It seems
likely that both intuitive and empirical approaches are necessary (and a
combination of the two) if we wish to advance our knowledge of how
speakers comprehend what they hear in everyday situations. The problem is
tackled initially by looking at a number of communications which have gone
wrong; as Gumperz and Tannen (1979) point out: "by studying what has
gone wrong when communication breaks down, we seek to understand a
process that goes unnoticed when it is successful" (p. 308). A similar
approach to speech production may be found in Fromkin (1973 and 1981).
Most of the miscommunications examined here are between people from
different dialect backgrounds: that is people whose internal grammars are
different in some specifiable way. This limitation is important methodo-
APPLIED SOCIOLINGUISTICS
ISBN: ll-12-701220-6
Copyright© L984 by Academic Press, London
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
8 LESLEY MILROY
logically as it helps us to assess the role of specifically linguistic knowledge in
comprehension. and it seems likely that conclusions on this wider matter can
be extended to communications between people with the same dialect
background.
Although it may be seen as a contribution to a major theoretical issue. this
chapter is primarily intended as an exercise in applied sociolinguistics: the
insights of sociolinguistics are used to analyse the manner in which communicative
breakdown occurs between speakers in everyday situations and
the consequences of this breakdown are considered. These nvo issues. the
theoretical and the applied. will be considered in parallel throughout the
discussion.
A miscommunication may be said to take place when there is a mismatch
between the speaker's intention and the hearer's interpretation. When two
persons do communicate successfully. it is clear that much more is involved
than the mapping of internal structures (or linguistic rules) on to external
sequences. or conversely (from the listener's point of view). mapping
external sequences on to internal structures (Bever. 1970. p. 286). A
number of perceptual strategies or .. short-cuts .. appear to be implemented
by a listener in decoding utterances. and it is probably most sensible to adopt
for the moment Aitchison's notion of a person's grammar as a ''linguistic
archive··. available and ready for consultation in interpreting utterances. but
not necessarily consulted. Thus. a sentence like the following is difficult to
comprehend. although it is perfectly grammatical:
The pig pushed in front of the piglets ate all the food.
This is because the perceptual strategies adopted by the listener are to
assume that the first noun will go with the first verb in an NP-VP (actor-action)
sequence as part of the main clause ... So he understandably makes the wrong
guess when he hears the words the pig pushed . ... especially as his knowledge of
the world tells him that pigs arc not usually pushed they generally do the
pushing. (Aitchison. 1976. p. 203).
Thus. the relation between internal grammars and comprehension is
indirect. especially since comprehension in natural settings (as opposed to
the experimental settings from which much of the psycholinguistic work
discussed by Aitchison derives) is often assisted by such factors as the
following:
I. Natural language contains a great deal of redundancy (see Lyons.
1977. p. 44 for a discussion of this).
JI. .. Context"' and "shared background knowledge" assist interlocutors
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 9
in interpreting utterances (Smith and Wilson. 1979). I refer to both
linguistic and extra-linguistic context here, and will return to a discussion
of it shortly.
111. Interlocutors in unplanned discourse have a range of strategies for
monitoring comprehension, for clarifying and for repairing mistakes
and misunderstandings as they follow the facial, gestural and interjectional
cues which accompany interactions. Constant repetition
and repair are important components of communication in context
and are themselves highly systematic (Schegloff et al., 1977~ Giv6n.
1979, p. 230).
IV. It appears that out of consideration for each other's and their own
••face··. speakers often make remarks whose ambiguity has a clear
social motivation (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 74). Speakers also
appear to be willing to allow a great deal of vagueness and ambiguity
to pass, on the assumption that meanings will become clear as the talk
proceeds (Cicourel, 1973, p. 54).
Thus, when miscommunication does take place. a whole range of factors
may be responsible. It is probably the indirectness of the relationship
between .. linguistic knowledge" (in Chomsky's sense) and language use
which accounts for the fact that speakers with partly different grammars
understand each other much of the time in natural settings; they rely on a
wide and varied range of comprehension strategies. However, when comprehension
between such speakers is tested experimentally (i.e. when
factors I to IV above are controlled), they appear to be unable to associate
sentences not generated by their own grammar with an appropriate semantic
structure (see Labov, 1972a; Trudgill, 1981). Generally speaking. arguments
for a ··polylectal grammar" as a reflection of a speaker's pan-dialectal
competence have not been supported by experiments such as Labov's or
Trudgilrs which require subjects either to select a paraphrase for sentences
generated by other dialect grammars. or to judge whether such sentences
are ··possible" English sentences (see also Ross, 1979 for a different, but
related, approach). The gap between these experimental results and results
of the observational research reported in this paper is sometimes quite large,
and will be discussed below. Meantime. it is perhaps worth noting Plutchik 's
comments on the value of observational (as opposed to experimental)
research in a field where knowledge is limited (Plutchik, 1976, p. 23).
While then it is certainly true that speakers with markedly different
grammars are frequently able to understand each other in context, it does
not seem quite justifiable to adopt uncritically the common view cited by (for
example) Smith and Wilson that differences between the grammars of
dialects are essentially trivial, and that potential misunderstandings can be
10 LESLEY MILROY
resolved by the implementation of perceptual strategies. or by context
(Smith and Wilson. 1979. p. 197). One purpose of this chapter will be to try
and isolate the conditions under which differences in speakers' grammars
may produce misunderstandings in natural settings; that is when the various
comprehension strategies available to a speaker have failed to work and he is
forced to consult his .. linguistic archive .. to assist him in interpreting
utterances.
Since Labov's initial demonstration of the .. limits" of individual grammars.
it has been generally accepted (at least by sociolinguists) that pandialectal
competence, active or passive, is extremely sharply constrained.
However, there is an implicit tendency to assume that it is competence in
non-standard grammars which is limited. It is significant, for example, and
quite characteristic of work in this area, that all the sentences discussed in
TrudgiH's 1981 paper are designed to test knowledge of non-standard
grammars. In an earlier publication, Trudgill expressed the view more
explicitly that non-standard speakers had at least a passive competence in
standard English (Trudgill, 1979) and Trudgill's view does not seem at all
uncommon.
In relation to this issue. it is worth noting Lyons' observation (made
generally, rather than with reference to cross-dialectal communication) that
misunderstandings are probably rather frequent during communicative acts,
and that this likelihood should be allowed for in any theoretical model of
communication (Lyons, 1977, p. 33). It is only rarely that speakers are
provided with feedback in any consistent way, and when this does happen
(as when students write down in examinations what they think has been said
to them) the level of misunderstanding is frequently revealed to be quite
horrifying (Aitchison, 1976, p. 197). If we take comments such as those of ·
Lyons and Aitchison into account, as well as the complex of knowledge and
strategies underlying comprehension, I think we have to treat the idea that
non-standard speakers "understand" standard English as a not very clearly
defined and quite unsupported assumption, rather than a self-evident truth
(in fact, some data will be discussed below which suggests that the assumption
requires some modification). A more interesting question may well be
concerned with the extent to which miscommunications are associated with
cross-dialectal communication.
The approach taken in this chapter will be to examine and analyse instances
of miscommunication against the extremely complicated but still by no
means comprehensive background which has been outlined so far; an attempt
will be make to bring together material from a number of relevant academic
perspectives. The main focus of interest will be in identifying as precisely as
possible the linguistic and contextual factors contributing to miscommunication,
but there will also be some brief discussion of the consequences of
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 11
miscommunication. This will be both in terms of speakers' responses, and in
successful communication and
communicative breakdown
Lesley Milroy
Introduction
The major theoretical issue to which this paper addresses itself is the
manner in which hearers use a combination of linguistic knowledge, knowledge
of a heterogeneous range of factors which broadly might be called
"contextual", and various perceptual strategies when they interpret utterances
in context. This issue is approached using methods familiar in sociolinguistics;
that is, the data base is real utterances as they are spoken in their
social context rather than constructed data intuitively interpreted. It seems
likely that both intuitive and empirical approaches are necessary (and a
combination of the two) if we wish to advance our knowledge of how
speakers comprehend what they hear in everyday situations. The problem is
tackled initially by looking at a number of communications which have gone
wrong; as Gumperz and Tannen (1979) point out: "by studying what has
gone wrong when communication breaks down, we seek to understand a
process that goes unnoticed when it is successful" (p. 308). A similar
approach to speech production may be found in Fromkin (1973 and 1981).
Most of the miscommunications examined here are between people from
different dialect backgrounds: that is people whose internal grammars are
different in some specifiable way. This limitation is important methodo-
APPLIED SOCIOLINGUISTICS
ISBN: ll-12-701220-6
Copyright© L984 by Academic Press, London
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
8 LESLEY MILROY
logically as it helps us to assess the role of specifically linguistic knowledge in
comprehension. and it seems likely that conclusions on this wider matter can
be extended to communications between people with the same dialect
background.
Although it may be seen as a contribution to a major theoretical issue. this
chapter is primarily intended as an exercise in applied sociolinguistics: the
insights of sociolinguistics are used to analyse the manner in which communicative
breakdown occurs between speakers in everyday situations and
the consequences of this breakdown are considered. These nvo issues. the
theoretical and the applied. will be considered in parallel throughout the
discussion.
A miscommunication may be said to take place when there is a mismatch
between the speaker's intention and the hearer's interpretation. When two
persons do communicate successfully. it is clear that much more is involved
than the mapping of internal structures (or linguistic rules) on to external
sequences. or conversely (from the listener's point of view). mapping
external sequences on to internal structures (Bever. 1970. p. 286). A
number of perceptual strategies or .. short-cuts .. appear to be implemented
by a listener in decoding utterances. and it is probably most sensible to adopt
for the moment Aitchison's notion of a person's grammar as a ''linguistic
archive··. available and ready for consultation in interpreting utterances. but
not necessarily consulted. Thus. a sentence like the following is difficult to
comprehend. although it is perfectly grammatical:
The pig pushed in front of the piglets ate all the food.
This is because the perceptual strategies adopted by the listener are to
assume that the first noun will go with the first verb in an NP-VP (actor-action)
sequence as part of the main clause ... So he understandably makes the wrong
guess when he hears the words the pig pushed . ... especially as his knowledge of
the world tells him that pigs arc not usually pushed they generally do the
pushing. (Aitchison. 1976. p. 203).
Thus. the relation between internal grammars and comprehension is
indirect. especially since comprehension in natural settings (as opposed to
the experimental settings from which much of the psycholinguistic work
discussed by Aitchison derives) is often assisted by such factors as the
following:
I. Natural language contains a great deal of redundancy (see Lyons.
1977. p. 44 for a discussion of this).
JI. .. Context"' and "shared background knowledge" assist interlocutors
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 9
in interpreting utterances (Smith and Wilson. 1979). I refer to both
linguistic and extra-linguistic context here, and will return to a discussion
of it shortly.
111. Interlocutors in unplanned discourse have a range of strategies for
monitoring comprehension, for clarifying and for repairing mistakes
and misunderstandings as they follow the facial, gestural and interjectional
cues which accompany interactions. Constant repetition
and repair are important components of communication in context
and are themselves highly systematic (Schegloff et al., 1977~ Giv6n.
1979, p. 230).
IV. It appears that out of consideration for each other's and their own
••face··. speakers often make remarks whose ambiguity has a clear
social motivation (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 74). Speakers also
appear to be willing to allow a great deal of vagueness and ambiguity
to pass, on the assumption that meanings will become clear as the talk
proceeds (Cicourel, 1973, p. 54).
Thus, when miscommunication does take place. a whole range of factors
may be responsible. It is probably the indirectness of the relationship
between .. linguistic knowledge" (in Chomsky's sense) and language use
which accounts for the fact that speakers with partly different grammars
understand each other much of the time in natural settings; they rely on a
wide and varied range of comprehension strategies. However, when comprehension
between such speakers is tested experimentally (i.e. when
factors I to IV above are controlled), they appear to be unable to associate
sentences not generated by their own grammar with an appropriate semantic
structure (see Labov, 1972a; Trudgill, 1981). Generally speaking. arguments
for a ··polylectal grammar" as a reflection of a speaker's pan-dialectal
competence have not been supported by experiments such as Labov's or
Trudgilrs which require subjects either to select a paraphrase for sentences
generated by other dialect grammars. or to judge whether such sentences
are ··possible" English sentences (see also Ross, 1979 for a different, but
related, approach). The gap between these experimental results and results
of the observational research reported in this paper is sometimes quite large,
and will be discussed below. Meantime. it is perhaps worth noting Plutchik 's
comments on the value of observational (as opposed to experimental)
research in a field where knowledge is limited (Plutchik, 1976, p. 23).
While then it is certainly true that speakers with markedly different
grammars are frequently able to understand each other in context, it does
not seem quite justifiable to adopt uncritically the common view cited by (for
example) Smith and Wilson that differences between the grammars of
dialects are essentially trivial, and that potential misunderstandings can be
10 LESLEY MILROY
resolved by the implementation of perceptual strategies. or by context
(Smith and Wilson. 1979. p. 197). One purpose of this chapter will be to try
and isolate the conditions under which differences in speakers' grammars
may produce misunderstandings in natural settings; that is when the various
comprehension strategies available to a speaker have failed to work and he is
forced to consult his .. linguistic archive .. to assist him in interpreting
utterances.
Since Labov's initial demonstration of the .. limits" of individual grammars.
it has been generally accepted (at least by sociolinguists) that pandialectal
competence, active or passive, is extremely sharply constrained.
However, there is an implicit tendency to assume that it is competence in
non-standard grammars which is limited. It is significant, for example, and
quite characteristic of work in this area, that all the sentences discussed in
TrudgiH's 1981 paper are designed to test knowledge of non-standard
grammars. In an earlier publication, Trudgill expressed the view more
explicitly that non-standard speakers had at least a passive competence in
standard English (Trudgill, 1979) and Trudgill's view does not seem at all
uncommon.
In relation to this issue. it is worth noting Lyons' observation (made
generally, rather than with reference to cross-dialectal communication) that
misunderstandings are probably rather frequent during communicative acts,
and that this likelihood should be allowed for in any theoretical model of
communication (Lyons, 1977, p. 33). It is only rarely that speakers are
provided with feedback in any consistent way, and when this does happen
(as when students write down in examinations what they think has been said
to them) the level of misunderstanding is frequently revealed to be quite
horrifying (Aitchison, 1976, p. 197). If we take comments such as those of ·
Lyons and Aitchison into account, as well as the complex of knowledge and
strategies underlying comprehension, I think we have to treat the idea that
non-standard speakers "understand" standard English as a not very clearly
defined and quite unsupported assumption, rather than a self-evident truth
(in fact, some data will be discussed below which suggests that the assumption
requires some modification). A more interesting question may well be
concerned with the extent to which miscommunications are associated with
cross-dialectal communication.
The approach taken in this chapter will be to examine and analyse instances
of miscommunication against the extremely complicated but still by no
means comprehensive background which has been outlined so far; an attempt
will be make to bring together material from a number of relevant academic
perspectives. The main focus of interest will be in identifying as precisely as
possible the linguistic and contextual factors contributing to miscommunication,
but there will also be some brief discussion of the consequences of
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 11
miscommunication. This will be both in terms of speakers' responses, and in
0/5000
ทำความเข้าใจและบริบท:สื่อสารประสบความสำเร็จ และแบ่งการสื่อสารMilroy มูลนิธินี้แนะนำหลักทฤษฎีที่เอกสารนี้อยู่เองได้ลักษณะการพูดการผสมผสานของภาษาศาสตร์ความรู้ ความรู้ช่วงของปัจจัยทั่วไปอาจเรียกแตกต่างกัน"บริบท" และกลยุทธ์ perceptual ต่าง ๆ เมื่อพวกเขาตี utterancesในบริบท ปัญหานี้จะประดับโดยใช้วิธีการคุ้นเคยในภาษาศาสตร์เชิงสังคมนั่นคือ ฐานข้อมูลความเป็นจริง utterances พวกเขาจะพูดในการบริบททางสังคมแทนที่สร้างข้อมูลหมดแปล ดูเหมือนว่ามีแนวโน้มว่า วิธีที่ง่าย และผลที่จำเป็น (และชุดสอง) ถ้าเราต้องการเรารู้ล่วงหน้าลำโพงเข้าใจสิ่งที่ได้ยินในชีวิตประจำวัน ปัญหาคือสำหรับเริ่มต้น โดยดูที่จำนวนของสื่อสารที่ได้ไปไม่ถูกต้อง เป็น Gumperz และ Tannen (1979) ชี้ให้เห็น: "โดยศึกษาว่ามีไปไม่ถูกต้องเมื่อมีการสื่อสารแบ่ง เราพยายามเข้าใจการกระบวนการที่ไปส่วนใหญ่เมื่อประสบความสำเร็จ" (p. 308) ความคล้ายคลึงกันอาจพบวิธีการผลิตเสียงใน Fromkin (1973 และ 1981)Miscommunications การตรวจสอบที่นี่มีคนจากพื้นหลังภาษาอื่น: คือคนที่ grammars ซึ่งภายในมีแตกต่างกันในบางวิธี specifiable ข้อจำกัดนี้เป็นสำคัญ methodo-ภาษาศาสตร์เชิงสังคมใช้ISBN: ll-12-701220-6Copyright© L984 by Academic Press, LondonAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved8 LESLEY MILROYlogically as it helps us to assess the role of specifically linguistic knowledge incomprehension. and it seems likely that conclusions on this wider matter canbe extended to communications between people with the same dialectbackground.Although it may be seen as a contribution to a major theoretical issue. thischapter is primarily intended as an exercise in applied sociolinguistics: theinsights of sociolinguistics are used to analyse the manner in which communicativebreakdown occurs between speakers in everyday situations andthe consequences of this breakdown are considered. These nvo issues. thetheoretical and the applied. will be considered in parallel throughout thediscussion.A miscommunication may be said to take place when there is a mismatchbetween the speaker's intention and the hearer's interpretation. When twopersons do communicate successfully. it is clear that much more is involvedthan the mapping of internal structures (or linguistic rules) on to externalsequences. or conversely (from the listener's point of view). mappingexternal sequences on to internal structures (Bever. 1970. p. 286). Anumber of perceptual strategies or .. short-cuts .. appear to be implementedby a listener in decoding utterances. and it is probably most sensible to adoptfor the moment Aitchison's notion of a person's grammar as a ''linguisticarchive··. available and ready for consultation in interpreting utterances. butnot necessarily consulted. Thus. a sentence like the following is difficult tocomprehend. although it is perfectly grammatical:The pig pushed in front of the piglets ate all the food.This is because the perceptual strategies adopted by the listener are toassume that the first noun will go with the first verb in an NP-VP (actor-action)sequence as part of the main clause ... So he understandably makes the wrongguess when he hears the words the pig pushed . ... especially as his knowledge ofthe world tells him that pigs arc not usually pushed they generally do thepushing. (Aitchison. 1976. p. 203).Thus. the relation between internal grammars and comprehension isindirect. especially since comprehension in natural settings (as opposed tothe experimental settings from which much of the psycholinguistic workdiscussed by Aitchison derives) is often assisted by such factors as thefollowing:I. Natural language contains a great deal of redundancy (see Lyons.1977. p. 44 for a discussion of this).JI. .. Context"' and "shared background knowledge" assist interlocutorsCOMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 9in interpreting utterances (Smith and Wilson. 1979). I refer to bothlinguistic and extra-linguistic context here, and will return to a discussionof it shortly.111. Interlocutors in unplanned discourse have a range of strategies formonitoring comprehension, for clarifying and for repairing mistakesand misunderstandings as they follow the facial, gestural and interjectionalcues which accompany interactions. Constant repetitionand repair are important components of communication in contextand are themselves highly systematic (Schegloff et al., 1977~ Giv6n.1979, p. 230).IV. It appears that out of consideration for each other's and their own••face··. speakers often make remarks whose ambiguity has a clearsocial motivation (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 74). Speakers alsoappear to be willing to allow a great deal of vagueness and ambiguityto pass, on the assumption that meanings will become clear as the talkproceeds (Cicourel, 1973, p. 54).Thus, when miscommunication does take place. a whole range of factorsmay be responsible. It is probably the indirectness of the relationshipbetween .. linguistic knowledge" (in Chomsky's sense) and language usewhich accounts for the fact that speakers with partly different grammarsunderstand each other much of the time in natural settings; they rely on awide and varied range of comprehension strategies. However, when comprehensionbetween such speakers is tested experimentally (i.e. whenfactors I to IV above are controlled), they appear to be unable to associatesentences not generated by their own grammar with an appropriate semanticstructure (see Labov, 1972a; Trudgill, 1981). Generally speaking. argumentsfor a ··polylectal grammar" as a reflection of a speaker's pan-dialectalcompetence have not been supported by experiments such as Labov's orTrudgilrs which require subjects either to select a paraphrase for sentencesgenerated by other dialect grammars. or to judge whether such sentencesare ··possible" English sentences (see also Ross, 1979 for a different, butrelated, approach). The gap between these experimental results and resultsof the observational research reported in this paper is sometimes quite large,and will be discussed below. Meantime. it is perhaps worth noting Plutchik 'scomments on the value of observational (as opposed to experimental)research in a field where knowledge is limited (Plutchik, 1976, p. 23).While then it is certainly true that speakers with markedly differentgrammars are frequently able to understand each other in context, it doesnot seem quite justifiable to adopt uncritically the common view cited by (forexample) Smith and Wilson that differences between the grammars ofdialects are essentially trivial, and that potential misunderstandings can be10 LESLEY MILROYresolved by the implementation of perceptual strategies. or by context(Smith and Wilson. 1979. p. 197). One purpose of this chapter will be to tryand isolate the conditions under which differences in speakers' grammarsmay produce misunderstandings in natural settings; that is when the variouscomprehension strategies available to a speaker have failed to work and he is
forced to consult his .. linguistic archive .. to assist him in interpreting
utterances.
Since Labov's initial demonstration of the .. limits" of individual grammars.
it has been generally accepted (at least by sociolinguists) that pandialectal
competence, active or passive, is extremely sharply constrained.
However, there is an implicit tendency to assume that it is competence in
non-standard grammars which is limited. It is significant, for example, and
quite characteristic of work in this area, that all the sentences discussed in
TrudgiH's 1981 paper are designed to test knowledge of non-standard
grammars. In an earlier publication, Trudgill expressed the view more
explicitly that non-standard speakers had at least a passive competence in
standard English (Trudgill, 1979) and Trudgill's view does not seem at all
uncommon.
In relation to this issue. it is worth noting Lyons' observation (made
generally, rather than with reference to cross-dialectal communication) that
misunderstandings are probably rather frequent during communicative acts,
and that this likelihood should be allowed for in any theoretical model of
communication (Lyons, 1977, p. 33). It is only rarely that speakers are
provided with feedback in any consistent way, and when this does happen
(as when students write down in examinations what they think has been said
to them) the level of misunderstanding is frequently revealed to be quite
horrifying (Aitchison, 1976, p. 197). If we take comments such as those of ·
Lyons and Aitchison into account, as well as the complex of knowledge and
strategies underlying comprehension, I think we have to treat the idea that
non-standard speakers "understand" standard English as a not very clearly
defined and quite unsupported assumption, rather than a self-evident truth
(in fact, some data will be discussed below which suggests that the assumption
requires some modification). A more interesting question may well be
concerned with the extent to which miscommunications are associated with
cross-dialectal communication.
The approach taken in this chapter will be to examine and analyse instances
of miscommunication against the extremely complicated but still by no
means comprehensive background which has been outlined so far; an attempt
will be make to bring together material from a number of relevant academic
perspectives. The main focus of interest will be in identifying as precisely as
possible the linguistic and contextual factors contributing to miscommunication,
but there will also be some brief discussion of the consequences of
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 11
miscommunication. This will be both in terms of speakers' responses, and in
forced to consult his .. linguistic archive .. to assist him in interpreting
utterances.
Since Labov's initial demonstration of the .. limits" of individual grammars.
it has been generally accepted (at least by sociolinguists) that pandialectal
competence, active or passive, is extremely sharply constrained.
However, there is an implicit tendency to assume that it is competence in
non-standard grammars which is limited. It is significant, for example, and
quite characteristic of work in this area, that all the sentences discussed in
TrudgiH's 1981 paper are designed to test knowledge of non-standard
grammars. In an earlier publication, Trudgill expressed the view more
explicitly that non-standard speakers had at least a passive competence in
standard English (Trudgill, 1979) and Trudgill's view does not seem at all
uncommon.
In relation to this issue. it is worth noting Lyons' observation (made
generally, rather than with reference to cross-dialectal communication) that
misunderstandings are probably rather frequent during communicative acts,
and that this likelihood should be allowed for in any theoretical model of
communication (Lyons, 1977, p. 33). It is only rarely that speakers are
provided with feedback in any consistent way, and when this does happen
(as when students write down in examinations what they think has been said
to them) the level of misunderstanding is frequently revealed to be quite
horrifying (Aitchison, 1976, p. 197). If we take comments such as those of ·
Lyons and Aitchison into account, as well as the complex of knowledge and
strategies underlying comprehension, I think we have to treat the idea that
non-standard speakers "understand" standard English as a not very clearly
defined and quite unsupported assumption, rather than a self-evident truth
(in fact, some data will be discussed below which suggests that the assumption
requires some modification). A more interesting question may well be
concerned with the extent to which miscommunications are associated with
cross-dialectal communication.
The approach taken in this chapter will be to examine and analyse instances
of miscommunication against the extremely complicated but still by no
means comprehensive background which has been outlined so far; an attempt
will be make to bring together material from a number of relevant academic
perspectives. The main focus of interest will be in identifying as precisely as
possible the linguistic and contextual factors contributing to miscommunication,
but there will also be some brief discussion of the consequences of
COMPREHENSION AND CONTEXT 11
miscommunication. This will be both in terms of speakers' responses, and in
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ความเข้าใจและบริบท :
เพื่อการสื่อสาร และการสื่อสารที่ประสบความสำเร็จแบ่งเลสลีย์ มิลรอย
ปัญหาเบื้องต้นทฤษฎีหลักที่กระดาษนี้ที่อยู่ตัวเอง
ในลักษณะใด ผู้ได้ฟังได้ใช้การรวมกันของความรู้ทางภาษาศาสตร์ความรู้
ของช่วงที่แตกต่างกันของปัจจัยที่กว้างอาจจะเรียกว่า
" บริบท "และกลยุทธ์การต่าง ๆ เมื่อพวกเขาตีความคำพูด
ในบริบท ปัญหานี้ก็ใช้วิธีการที่คุ้นเคยในภาษาศาสตร์สังคม ;
นั่นคือฐานข้อมูลเป็นคำพูดจริงตามที่พูดในบริบทของสังคม มากกว่าการสร้างข้อมูล
สังหรณ์ใจว่า ดูเหมือนว่า
โอกาสที่ทั้งง่ายและเชิงประจักษ์วิธีจำเป็น ( และ
การรวมกันของทั้งสอง ) ถ้าเราต้องการความรู้ล่วงหน้าของเราวิธี
ลำโพงเข้าใจสิ่งที่พวกเขาได้ยินในชีวิตประจำวัน . ปัญหาคือ
tackled เริ่มต้นโดยดูที่จำนวนของการสื่อสารที่ได้ไป
ผิด เป็น gumperz tannen ( 1979 ) และจุดออก : " เรียนอะไร
ผิดพลาดเมื่อการสื่อสารพัง เราก็พยายามที่จะเข้าใจ
กระบวนการที่ไปสังเกตเมื่อมันสำเร็จ " ( หน้า 308 ) คล้ายๆ
การผลิตการพูดอาจจะพบได้ใน fromkin ( 1973 และ 1981 ) .
ที่สุดของ miscommunications ตรวจสอบที่นี่ระหว่างผู้คนจากภูมิหลังที่แตกต่างกัน :
ถิ่นที่ผู้ภายในไวยากรณ์เป็น
แตกต่างกันในบางวิธีเฉพาะเจาะจง . ข้อ จำกัด นี้เป็นเทคนิคที่สำคัญ --
ISBN : ภาษาศาสตร์สังคมประยุกต์ll-12-701220-6
ลิขสิทธิ์© l984 โดยกดวิชาการ , ลอนดอน
สิทธิทั้งหมดของการสืบพันธุ์ในแบบฟอร์มจองมิลรอย
8 เลสลีย์ เหตุผลมันช่วยให้เราเพื่อประเมินบทบาทของความรู้ในด้านภาษาศาสตร์โดยเฉพาะ
ความเข้าใจ และดูเหมือนว่ามีแนวโน้มว่า ข้อสรุปในเรื่องนี้ได้ถูกขยายให้กว้างขึ้น
สื่อสารระหว่างบุคคลกับฉากหลัง
สำเนียงเดียวกันแม้ว่ามันอาจจะเห็นได้ว่าผลงานเป็นหลักทฤษฎีดังกล่าว บทนี้
เป็นหลัก มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อเป็นการฝึกประยุกต์ภาษาศาสตร์สังคม :
ข้อมูลเชิงลึกของภาษาศาสตร์สังคมที่ใช้วิเคราะห์ในลักษณะใด การสลายการสื่อสาร
เกิดขึ้นระหว่างลำโพงในชีวิตประจำวันและ
ผลของการแบ่งนี้เป็นสำคัญ ปัญหา nvo เหล่านี้
ทฤษฎีและการประยุกต์ จะพิจารณาขนานตลอด
พูดอภิปราย อาจกล่าวได้ว่าเกิดขึ้นเมื่อมีไม่ตรงกัน
ระหว่างเจตนาของผู้พูดและการตีความของผู้ฟัง เมื่อสอง
คนสื่อสารเรียบร้อยแล้ว มันเป็นที่ชัดเจนมากขึ้นมีส่วนร่วม
กว่าแผนที่ของโครงสร้างภายใน ( หรือกฎทางภาษา ) ในลำดับภายนอก
หรือในทางกลับกัน ( จากจุดของมุมมองของผู้ฟัง ) แผนที่
ภายนอกลำดับในโครงสร้างภายใน ( บีเวอร์ . 1970 . หน้า 286 ) มีจำนวนของกลยุทธ์การ
หรือ . . . . . . . ตัดสั้น . . . . . . . ปรากฏที่จะใช้ในการถอดรหัส
โดยผู้ฟังได้แก่ . และมันอาจจะเหมาะสมที่สุดสำหรับความคิดขณะอุปการะ
เอชีสันของไวยากรณ์ของคนเป็น ' ··ถาวร 'linguistic
เพื่อการสื่อสาร และการสื่อสารที่ประสบความสำเร็จแบ่งเลสลีย์ มิลรอย
ปัญหาเบื้องต้นทฤษฎีหลักที่กระดาษนี้ที่อยู่ตัวเอง
ในลักษณะใด ผู้ได้ฟังได้ใช้การรวมกันของความรู้ทางภาษาศาสตร์ความรู้
ของช่วงที่แตกต่างกันของปัจจัยที่กว้างอาจจะเรียกว่า
" บริบท "และกลยุทธ์การต่าง ๆ เมื่อพวกเขาตีความคำพูด
ในบริบท ปัญหานี้ก็ใช้วิธีการที่คุ้นเคยในภาษาศาสตร์สังคม ;
นั่นคือฐานข้อมูลเป็นคำพูดจริงตามที่พูดในบริบทของสังคม มากกว่าการสร้างข้อมูล
สังหรณ์ใจว่า ดูเหมือนว่า
โอกาสที่ทั้งง่ายและเชิงประจักษ์วิธีจำเป็น ( และ
การรวมกันของทั้งสอง ) ถ้าเราต้องการความรู้ล่วงหน้าของเราวิธี
ลำโพงเข้าใจสิ่งที่พวกเขาได้ยินในชีวิตประจำวัน . ปัญหาคือ
tackled เริ่มต้นโดยดูที่จำนวนของการสื่อสารที่ได้ไป
ผิด เป็น gumperz tannen ( 1979 ) และจุดออก : " เรียนอะไร
ผิดพลาดเมื่อการสื่อสารพัง เราก็พยายามที่จะเข้าใจ
กระบวนการที่ไปสังเกตเมื่อมันสำเร็จ " ( หน้า 308 ) คล้ายๆ
การผลิตการพูดอาจจะพบได้ใน fromkin ( 1973 และ 1981 ) .
ที่สุดของ miscommunications ตรวจสอบที่นี่ระหว่างผู้คนจากภูมิหลังที่แตกต่างกัน :
ถิ่นที่ผู้ภายในไวยากรณ์เป็น
แตกต่างกันในบางวิธีเฉพาะเจาะจง . ข้อ จำกัด นี้เป็นเทคนิคที่สำคัญ --
ISBN : ภาษาศาสตร์สังคมประยุกต์ll-12-701220-6
ลิขสิทธิ์© l984 โดยกดวิชาการ , ลอนดอน
สิทธิทั้งหมดของการสืบพันธุ์ในแบบฟอร์มจองมิลรอย
8 เลสลีย์ เหตุผลมันช่วยให้เราเพื่อประเมินบทบาทของความรู้ในด้านภาษาศาสตร์โดยเฉพาะ
ความเข้าใจ และดูเหมือนว่ามีแนวโน้มว่า ข้อสรุปในเรื่องนี้ได้ถูกขยายให้กว้างขึ้น
สื่อสารระหว่างบุคคลกับฉากหลัง
สำเนียงเดียวกันแม้ว่ามันอาจจะเห็นได้ว่าผลงานเป็นหลักทฤษฎีดังกล่าว บทนี้
เป็นหลัก มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อเป็นการฝึกประยุกต์ภาษาศาสตร์สังคม :
ข้อมูลเชิงลึกของภาษาศาสตร์สังคมที่ใช้วิเคราะห์ในลักษณะใด การสลายการสื่อสาร
เกิดขึ้นระหว่างลำโพงในชีวิตประจำวันและ
ผลของการแบ่งนี้เป็นสำคัญ ปัญหา nvo เหล่านี้
ทฤษฎีและการประยุกต์ จะพิจารณาขนานตลอด
พูดอภิปราย อาจกล่าวได้ว่าเกิดขึ้นเมื่อมีไม่ตรงกัน
ระหว่างเจตนาของผู้พูดและการตีความของผู้ฟัง เมื่อสอง
คนสื่อสารเรียบร้อยแล้ว มันเป็นที่ชัดเจนมากขึ้นมีส่วนร่วม
กว่าแผนที่ของโครงสร้างภายใน ( หรือกฎทางภาษา ) ในลำดับภายนอก
หรือในทางกลับกัน ( จากจุดของมุมมองของผู้ฟัง ) แผนที่
ภายนอกลำดับในโครงสร้างภายใน ( บีเวอร์ . 1970 . หน้า 286 ) มีจำนวนของกลยุทธ์การ
หรือ . . . . . . . ตัดสั้น . . . . . . . ปรากฏที่จะใช้ในการถอดรหัส
โดยผู้ฟังได้แก่ . และมันอาจจะเหมาะสมที่สุดสำหรับความคิดขณะอุปการะ
เอชีสันของไวยากรณ์ของคนเป็น ' ··ถาวร 'linguistic
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- กุหลาบ 1 ดอกต่อท่าน
- WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE INVENTORY?P
- ฉันเป็นบรรพบุรุษของคุณ
- This survey study was aimed to investiga
- Background: There are indications that o
- Table 2: Waiting time results for Monday
- building do not dismantle, destroy, crea
- WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE INVENTORY?P
- Don't u have any other pic of yours that
- Happy 3th anniversary months
- associate
- first intention healing refers to scar t
- จริงๆ
- how do you find jane?
- มีสินค้าที่ดูเก่าและไม่ทันสมัย ผู้ประกอบ
- ในปัจจุบันคนส่วนใหญ่ให้ความสนใจในการอ่าน
- there
- Anyone want to help me lue?
- ความรักมันเศร้าจัง
- Brown Rice & Sesame Fried Vegetables
- ฉันรอคุณที่บ้าน
- he stops a lot of bad things from happen
- Counter trade is an international barter
- เด็กเอ๋ยเด็กน้อย ความรู้เรายังด้อยเร่งศึ
