Why quit while you’re ahead?

The notion of quitting while ahead most likely comes from gambling, where one constantly runs the risk of losing everything, regardless of any recent victories or turns of luck. A conversation can be considered a gamble- especially one where the tone is not particularly friendly or socially safe.

Winning or losing may not extend beyond winning or losing face*, but the social capital tied up in saving or keeping face is often part of the turmoil of an argument- your actions and your principles can often take a momentary break from each other, and you might find yourself convincing others of the way you are or what you stand for, but in a way that may emphasize your character flaws instead.

Quitting while ahead can help you avoid backpedaling, embarrassing retractions, or the eventual apology that might be inevitable anyway- no point in having to apologize for being wrong and acting like a rageaholic, or a passive-aggressive jerk.

How to quit while one is ahead?

This is the easiest question in the world to answer, and yet the most difficult to enact in 97.5% of arguments. The key to quitting ahead is embracing a sense o f delayed gratification, and involves exerting a more-than-nominal amount of social capital and personal willpower.

…how does one quit while one is ahead, you ask?

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. It’s that simple. You want to quell an argument? Do you want to de-escalate or prevent an escalation in the first place? Quit while you’re ahead. Shut the fuck up. Just shut up. Cease the stream of increasingly self-righteous, self-serving and self-indulgent rhetoric that’s about to pin you into a verbal corner, and quit while you’re ahead.

This effort is worthwhile at any point in the argument, but its effects are more pronounced the sooner the shutting up takes place. The sooner you disengage and start keeping your opinions to yourself, the less fuel is added to the verbal conflict. By not providing your interlocutor with explanations or retorts you can effectively neutralize a conflict and maintain the advantage by controlling the conversation. As in, ending it. By shutting the fuck up.

–

*What is face?

Face is how we manage the needs for clarity and politeness. Face-threatening acts are those which threaten the face-wants of a speaker, which impose upon their autonomy or do not emphasize friendliness.

i had to pick two out of these four:

• What is formulaic language, what is the lexicon, and what does formulaic language tell us about the lexicon?

• What are some aspects of language that are difficult to account for in a model of language that makes a clear distinction between the lexicon and grammar?

• Some people have argued that formulaic language exists in order to save on processing effort. Does this view hold up?

• Compare the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff) and Conceptual Blending/Mental Spaces Theory (Fauconnier) approaches to metaphor. How are these two approaches different, and how are they similar? Which, in your opinion, provides a better account of metaphor?

i chose to answer questions 2 & 3. following are my responses:

2. Like most generalizations about language, making a clear distinction between th lexicon and grammar fails to take into account an important interaction between the two. Even though we have tens of thousands of words individually stored in our lexicons, it’s been discovered that we do not use the lexicon on a one plus one basis all the time. Instead, there are parts of the lexicon that we use in very grammatical-like fashions, to function in a pragmatic way in the utterance while, most often, still maintaining a lexical meaning. In fact, formulaic language, due to its predictable qualities, can index more than one content meaning, giving way to the use of metaphor in our everyday use of language. Without a clear distinction between grammar and the lexicon, categories of words that used to be “exceptions” or were somehow outside the realm of categorization suddenly have a home. Politeness and greeting terms, idioms, catch phrases and children’s rhymes, before relegated to the fringes of language use for a lack of understanding of their nature and function, are now understood to be fundamental and intrinsic to our use of language. It has been estimated that formulaic language can account for almost half of a discourse. The inevitable change in the meaning of a word by way of frequency of use and context deeply influences the way such a word will be used in the future, and when factoring in the rest of the variables that affect language use, it’s easy to see how certain meanings become quickly conventionalized for the sake of mutual understanding. This type of pattern in human behavior is seen in other aspects of language and culture. Ritualized behavior has both cognitive and social roots and expressions. Analyzed language must be looked at like most aspects of human behavior: as a gradient with far-ranging ends of the spectrum.

3. I don’t have a problem with any of the words in the sentence “[F]ormulaic language exists in order to save on processing effort.” except for “in order to.” I respectfully disagree with this view, and I don’t think that under scrutiny it can be successfully defended. Human behavior is hardly ever motivated on a purely cognitive level. It’s not accurate to view language as some self-fulfilling means and ends. Instead, language is a tool and vehicle by which to acquire, achieve, and exchange other things in the greater reality, and within the social groups we create and belong to in that greater context. In order to achieve and acquire that which prolongs our survival, we must establish a common ground and set of shared experiences with those around us, also social creatures with similar tools to achieve similar ends. It is by this process of establishing mutually beneficial relationships that we use and reuse language. We use language so much, so often, in such similar contexts, that our cognition, the web of interrelated and highly complex mental processes that allow us to mechanize other behaviors such as breathing, blinking, and even more immediately complex sets of actions like drive a car, also mechanizes the gestures necessary to produce certain words and chunks of language. No doubt we save on processing time when we use formulaic language. And no doubt it’s a strategy actively exploited by our cognition to fulfill our greater goals. Human behavior is quickly regularized and ritualized, and meaning is attached to not only the original action or words but to the formulaic versions as well. My repertoire for greetings is large, yet I don’t automatically use the quickest or most used way in just any context. A fully realized “good morning,” one type of chunk, is best when dealing with my boss, whereas “morning” an even more established piece of formulaic language, is appropriate when greeting my peers. The consideration of boss vs. peer dictates a choice that negates efficiency. Ultimately, saying that the conscious motivation of formulaic language is to the end of efficient processing reflects a partial and imbalanced view of the entirety that is the motivation, necessity, and desire to use language.

1. my neighbor to the north

the answer to the last blog being a bit more obvious to me than what is going on around me, i will postpone that answer in favor of noting the nature of the conversations i’ve had with my new neighbors. i’m finding interesting cultural mechanisms and watching the ties of social networks bind people together. at some point i would like to gather recorded data of a conversation the likes of which i had tonight. during a conversation with my neighbor to the north, i learned about the kinds of social parameters among which humanity communicates and which call back strongly to prior incarnations of human spoken communication, i.e., by short, mid, or long distance travel by foot, stopping to speak to strangers.

my neighbor described to me an exchange as he was sitting outside his house with a man who was homeless. he went on to describe the social graces by which the two sat together for over an hour and a half and traded stories, life information, points of view and all the underlined cultural knowledge and experience that structure such exchanges (much in the same way we were, standing outside and having our first official conversation as neighbors- an exchange with a structure tailored to the information needs of getting to know one’s neighbor). my neighbor to the north had been drinking his last beer, and the traveling man shared his four pack. my neighbor, being the keen social and cultural observer (as he is able to articulate this story in such a way that it has struck me so), later on remembered the man in the same part of town from which he hailed. remembering his name, he told me that his desire was to make sure the man remembered him. my neighbor finally jogged “James”’ memory, and went on to buy him a 4 pack, because at the time, as he pointed out “he could.” this story was told to illustrate my neighbor’s point of view on life, which have a very strong undercurrent of lingusitic availability and willingness, while maintaining an awareness and belief that others do not engage in such behavior and that this is detrimental. this is helpful to me as it gives me insights into how people actively seek others in conversation and the use of spoken language to exchange ideas and information.

this method still overridingly affects our communication and means of doing so, and more importantly creates the types of connections between the people within a society and culture at the immediate, opinion forming level.

this description i feel does not do justice to the exchange i just had. i look forward to the possibility of capturing some speech and transcribing it in order to note the exact linguistic cues that have aided me in this observation. i fear that they are so tenuous, and yet so obvious, that they may seem pedantic or worse, eye rollingly basic. however, there are certain aspects of any language variety, in any space or time, that should be captured as best as possible in order to further our general understanding of language usage.

from now on i’ll continue to keep track of interactions with my neighbors as faithfully as i can, understanding the inherent pitfalls and failings of, to analyze and try to understand the discoursal, pragmatic, and social aspects of language in conversation through the exchanges i have with them. this neighborhood provides me with a rich variety of…well….varieties of speech, and i hope to capture some of the nuances that make up what we call culture and community.

——————————————————————————————————

The Importance of Speaking and Understanding English Language in the USA

A Texan is walking through a field, sees a Mexican drinking water from a pool with one cupped hand.
The Texan shouts to the Mexican……………..
“Hey don’t drink that water ……. It has cow poop in it!
The Mexican shouts back “Soy mexicano, yo no entiendo inglés. Hábleme español.”. (I’m Mexican, I don’t speak English. Speak Spanish to me.)
The Texan shouts back: “Utilice ambas manos, usted conseguirá más
Parabeber.”…………………….. (Use both hands, you’ll get more to drink.)
Oh yeah, Mexicans DEMAND that we learn THEIR LANGUAGE
So WE can communicate with THEM.

Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is!
If you agree, pass this on (in English).

If not blow it off……… Along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things!!!

——————————————————————————————————

hint: language ideologies and ideologies of language

answer key in the next blog.

Woolard and Schieffelin point out that “ideologies of language are significant for social as well as linguistic analysis because they are not only about language. Rather, such ideologies envision and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, to morality, and to epistemology” (1994: 56). Cultures vary widely in how such ideological tenets are expressed. Generally, however, linguistic structures are organized into socially acceptable routes, and modes of expression are formalized in disseminating ideas among members of a culture. Identifying such sites of expression within a culture, and understanding their function as an outlet for ideologically shaping content, is vital to achieving a functional grasp of any given language, since as a tool it is not only a set of formal grammatical structures, but intrinsic in shaping and maintaining cultural and social perceptions of others and the self.

As a site of ideological dissemination, humor works as “an embodiment, a filter, a creator and recreator, and a transmitter of culture” (Sherzer 1987: 306), much like discourse does in general. The interest of this paper is to analyze humor, using stand-up comedy as the primary site of analysis, as a “natural” (Silverstein 1998: 128-9) interpretation of language, and therefore a valid medium by which to shape cultural perception. This manipulation of discourse and performance through mechanisms such as juxtaposition, frame shifting, and ambiguity, work directly to convey the opinion of the speaker, which carries meaning and relevance beyond the joke which acts as the vehicle as it pertains to ideologies of language. The focus of this presentation will be the humor of several comedians as performed within the frames and schemas of stand up comedy. Through analysis of linguistic structure, as well as the underlying cultural messages which these forms convey, I hope to outline a specific mechanism by which language ideologies are dispersed throughout audiences and by extension through society in general via the use of humor.

Sherzer, Joel. 1987. A Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 89, No. 2, June, 295-309.

Silverstein, Michael. 1998. The uses and utility of ideology: A commentary. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 123-148.

Woolard, Kathryn A., & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23. pp. 52-82.

–adjective

2. not conforming in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, etc., to the usage characteristic of and considered acceptable by most educated native speakers; lacking in social prestige or regionally or socially limited in use: a nonstandard dialect; nonstandard English. Compare standard (def. 27). (1)

the idea that language has a ‘standard’ is a vitally important one. it recurs throughout cultures and time, and is a shaping force in how people not only communicate with one another, but perceive those communications. opinions about language play crucial roles in defining social and cultural standing, role, and perspective. however, as one studies language, and languages, and the people who create and use this faculty, it becomes increasingly obvious that whatever standard people are striving for in their speech is one that eludes everyone. one of the most important reasons for this is that people’s ideas of what the standard is vary according to the constrains of their own experience. as one can see, this becomes a heavily convoluted situation quickly. another facet that affects the idea of the standard is literacy, the use of writing as a way to reflect language. this tool allows for widespread propagation of language, but only when it can be uniformly understood by the target audience. literary cultures have histories of strong standardization, with many developing societies such as the Real Academia Española (2), and the Académie française (3). the associations between a standardized language and the prestige of education or learning have shaped the acceptability of what is said. prescriptive approaches to language have since shaped the explanations of what language is and how it works, standardizing the form along rigid rule paradigms.

however, these approaches are limited in their scope of explanation, since every day language use falls far from whatever standard is superimposed upon it. instead, language changes and shifts, acquiring and losing meanings and structures according to other, more cognitively organic patterns and structures. the study of language along these parameters allows for a greater scope of understanding. by studying the function of language, rather than trying to dictate or emphasize the form, a student of language can focus instead on the boundaries and outlines inherent to the faculty itself.

if we look beyond the standard, we begin to see a larger picture with less clearly defined lines and many more questions than answers. consider that regardless of how closely we adhere to the agreed-upon structure taught to us as correct, we can still understand each other and effectively communicate everything from basic physical needs to abstract, conceptual thought. the ability to do so does not rest in the memorization of grammar rules taught to us as teenagers, but is instead a reflection of a deeply complex mental system that has been working in our brains since before birth. by treating language as unique and universally nonstandard, we can truly begin to understand how it is in fact the same, binding us to each other and the world.