Responsibility

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Responsibility

Post by metal56 » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:49 pm

Is it our main responsibility as language teachers to help produce language users whose primings harmonise with those already in positions of influence or power (see below)?

"The most important controlling mechanism in the great majority of cultures is education. Examinations are, amongst other things, attempts to ensure that only those whose primings harmonise with those already in positions of influence or power move into jobs that will in turn exercise influence or power over others. So in the UK, examination boards are required specifically to look out for grammar and spelling. Mastery of a subject is, again amongst other things, mastery of the collocations, colligations and semantic associations of the vocabulary of the discipline – mastery, in fact, of the domain-specific and genre-specific primings."

"By primed , I mean that as the word is learnt through encounters with it in speech and writing, it is loaded with the cumulative effects of those encounters such that it is part of our knowledge of the word that it co-occurs with other words."

http://www.monabaker.com/tsresources/Le ... ofText.htm

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:06 pm

"Creativity comes from the switching off of primings. Fluency comes from conformity to them."

Same link as above.

User avatar
John Hall
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Costa Rica

Re: Responsibility

Post by John Hall » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:59 pm

metal56 wrote:Is it our main responsibility as language teachers to help produce language users whose primings harmonise with those already in positions of influence or power (see below)?
This could be so, but only to a certain extent. In learning a second language, we make it possible for ourselves to be influenced by the speakers of that language. However, what this passage does not take into consideration is that second language learners are not just recipients of the influence of the culture of the second language, but can also exert influence (by speaking and/or writing in that second language) over members of that culture. A prime minister of an English-speaking country, for example, won't succumb to the influence of Africans by learning Swahili. Instead, he or she will gain the opportunity to extend his or her influence among non-English speaking speakers of Swahili.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:46 am

"Creativity comes from the switching off of primings. Fluency comes from conformity to them."
I disagree. Creativity needs to be defined. To use an extreme example, I can ask for water and creatively call it milk (thereby switch off my primings). Unless my audience creatively hears what I intend; unless they switch off their primings in the same way; unless we're on the same wavelength; my creativity does me no good if I confuse people, even some people. Optimal communication is only achieved when we're working with the same primings. Creativity can be achieved (and often is achieved) by arranging thoughts while still using the precisely defined, linguistically known universal vocabulary (or primings) within a certain language group, (which is only one element of speaking fluently). Does that author disagree with this? I absolutely reject the notion that when we speak fluently (or according to our primings), that this is somehow the opposite of creative, as if it were some kind of mindless mumblings bereft of meaning (again redolent of Skinner) — I think opposite. I think it's possible (and common) that one can have a creative thought and have it expressed uncreatively, or fluently, which doesn't reflect at all on the original creativity of the thought either way. When "creativity" exerts itself in the definition of words, which creativity all speakers aren't familiar with and haven't equally broke with their primings, then the possibility for communication lapses increases — until everyone is clued in on the new primings.
Last edited by jotham on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Miss Elenious
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 6:08 pm
Location: Greece

Post by Miss Elenious » Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:01 am

Is creativity accepted only when produced by native speakers?Can second language learners be creative as well and not be corrected? Could the same 'creative' expression be accepted as creativity when uttered by a native speaker and "frowned upon" when expressed by a SL learner?

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:14 am

To use an extreme example, I can ask for water and creatively call it milk (thereby switch off my primings). Unless my audience creatively hears what I intend; unless they switch off their primings in the same way; unless we're on the same wavelength; my creativity does me no good if I confuse people, even some people.
That's a good example, Jotham, and I agree with you regarding the need to define creativity, but do not agree that one can always avoid confusing some of one's addressees. Or, at least, one cannot always assure that one's addressees will share the same primings as oneself, i.e. the addresser/writer/speaker.

In fact, when most people are being creative, I think they have in mind a general receivership, but cannot always know the -nth percent's situation regarding priming. Plus, if one were always to concern oneself with communicating clearly to the whole, to everyone, one may never take chances with the language. In fact, many writers do write in that "safe zone" regarding primings.

Yet, I also disagree with Hoey's statement if taken as "the last word" on creativity. I do think that one can still be seen as being creative if applying the primings shared by the majority. I must say that I like both approaches. I love reading books in which the writer is being creative with the primings that are familar to me and that do not go against such primings, but I also like it when a writer plays with, or goes against such primings. The latter approach makes me work a bit harder, but I enjoy haiving my primings reprimed.

Optimal communication is only achieved when we're working with the same primings.

Is that only the responsibility of the speaker/writer/addresser? I'd say not. One can only hope that avoiding, playing with, manipulating the primings one assumes one shares with one's addressee, the addressee will be primed enough to decipher one's message. Communication is, after all, a two way thing.

So, going back to your waiter example above, one must sometimes take chances as an addressee. If one assumes that the waiter will not understand the repriming of what is normally seen as water, one may never make a move into the world of repriming.
When "creativity" exerts itself in the definition of words, which creativity all speakers aren't familiar with and haven't equally broke with their primings, then the possibility for communication lapses increases---until everyone is clued in on the new primings.
I agree with you to a point, but we mustn't lose the risk element from communication. We need not always have to have guarantees before we make a move or before we attempt to reprime, or at least go against the set primings we assume we share. If we did lose that risk element, most great works of art would not exist. In many cases, it is only in hindsight that we can know if our reprimings were effective. Maybe the next time your waiter hears "milk" when he brings water, he will be primed enough to not be so phased as he was previously.
Last edited by metal56 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:28 am

I agree with you regarding the need to define creativity but a do not agree that one can always avoid confusing some of one's addressees.
I wasn't arguing that it should always be avoided; I was defending fluent English. There's a beautiful balance between slang and standard English. I just took issue with calling standard English, or rather fluent English — a different thing entirely — uncreative.
Last edited by jotham on Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:32 am

jotham wrote:
I agree with you regarding the need to define creativity but a do not agree that one can always avoid confusing some of one's addressees.
I never said that it should be avoided. There's a beautiful balance between slang and standard English. I just took issue with calling standard English, or rather fluent English---a different thing entirely---uncreative.
Ah, I see. And would you comment on the main question?
Is it our main responsibility as language teachers to help produce language users whose primings harmonise with those already in positions of influence or power?

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:40 am

That questions sounds so politically laden. I never think about such magnificent and complex things when I'm teaching, so I guess I don't see it as my "main responsibility." I think when first teaching EFL students, you teach basics, almost like you do with our kids. I don't suppose one would familiarize them or even teach them to talk professional or business until you get into much higher levels. My teaching experience in ESL isn't much.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:49 am

That questions sounds so politically laden.
On my part, it's based on 25 years of debating classroom content with education authorites, language academies world over and with forumites who feel we should only be teaching the primings which harmonise with those already in positions of influence or power.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:08 am

Wow, I kind of like the new lingo here - if only because it's got metal flowing like a mighty unblocked toilet (not flaming, just seeing if I can reprime some of my, and others', primings :D ).

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:21 am

fluffyhamster wrote:Wow, I kind of like the new lingo here - if only because it's got metal flowing like a mighty unblocked toilet (not flaming, just seeing if I can reprime some of my primings :D ).
Let's see...

Fluff's disruptive strategy over the past days:

1. make a snide comment about the worth of a topic.
2. Post a new thread to bring unsavoury attention to the posts of another poster.
3. If that doesn't work, post silliness all over the threads of said poster.

Business as usual for Fluff. Problem is, such a strategy smacks of attempts at censorship, of limiting breadth in discussions here. Note this comment, for example:
Obviously, feel free to post whatever other terms from whichever field of linguistics (nothing too specialized or arcane though, please).
Fluff allows us to feel free? LOL! I wait for the next step in Fluff's strategy: posting lots of links to past posts to prove that that Fluff is not a trolling as it seems. Links to posts which try to show that others are much worse than Fluff when it comes to disrupting the normal working of this forum. Just wait and see.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:05 am

So you really can't ever take a joke, metal?

And just because I've made a joke doesn't mean that I haven't at least read the thread; also, since when was there a rule that anyone who dares post anything has to always make it a substantial contribution? I think I do my fair share actually of nudging discussions along, in posts substantial and insubstantial. Lighten up, dude!

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:35 am

So you really can't ever take a joke, metal?
If the "joke" takes on the proportions of a major novel and distracts us from the topic question, then no.
when was there a rule that anyone who dares post anything has to always make it a substantial contribution?
There should be one on making substantial distractions. But then you'd not be here if there were such a rule, now would you?

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:05 am

Yes, it would indeed be a thin line between not agreeing with you enough and not disagreeing with you enough, to say nothing of the worshipping required. Maybe you should start your own discussion site, like Shuntang!

Post Reply