LINGÜÍSTICA

Forum for on-line classes
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin


Posts : 56
Join date : 2008-05-26

PostSubject: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:29 pm

Arrow adrianaa: If you also consider the audience then you’ll be operating at another level of interaction in which the camera/scripwriter will also have to be included. I think it’s safer to only consider Rex, Bree and the other player.
You should have made the message more explicit, i.e. what they talked about, etc.
What do you mean that “It is seizable by the addressees and verbal”?
The speech acts between addresser and addressee is possible since they share the same physical channel, i.e. they are standing on the same golf course and there is nothing there that may hinder the sound waves to reach each other’s ears.
And yes, the other player is also an addresser. Non-verbal communication is achieved through the use of gestures.

Arrow JULIETAF: The caddie/other player is also an addresser.
As to the context you should also consider spatio-temporal factors.
The message was about?
See adrianaa’s contact


Arrow ARIANAR: You forgot to include spatio-temporal elements in the context.

Arrow VALERIAF: Sometimes you confuse context with message. Also note that the context includes spatio-temporal factors, i.e. where they are, when the speech events took place (morning, evening?). You should maybe revise what you consider a “verbalized version” of the context.

Arrow Vtrinidad: The other player is also an addresser, he uses body language to give a reply (check javiers’s answer in this sense). Your description of the context is a bit restricted.

Arrow javiers: some context description missing. Your views on how to change the perspective of the analysis are quite right. As to your views on Jakobson, I think he played quite safely when using concepts such as context and/or contact. Whatever you think of as “interactions usually more complex” may easily be subsumed under these factors.


Arrow virginial: good on the whole, read comments above for a more comprehensive analysis of the context.
As to the inclusion of gestures and the like will be retheorizing Jakobson. Our point at this stage is to see how we can apply Jakobson’s views to this sample. Beyond that, yes, you might be right somehow. Gestures are non-linguistic features and as such may be addressed by different factors, even the contact might be related to them.

Arrow micaelag: good on the whole.

Arrow Florenciaonti: your analysis of the context is incomplete (see previous comments). Constitutive factors.

Arrow Beleni: you should have included temporal aspects in the context.

Arrow gustavop: good on the whole. I think I’ve already answered your queries before. You’re right about Rex and the other player/caddie.


Arrow Marianelab: you forgot to include the other player as addresser/addressee. When you say that the audience can be included the analysis will be somewhat different, i.e. taking place at another level. The context framework is incomplete.

Arrow elianaa: your analysis is a bit restricted. For instance, you forget to include the other player as interlocutor and also you should have discussed some factors further, such as the context for example.

Arrow ALL: Good work!

Exclamation WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE CLASS????
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://linguisticadeldiscurso.blogspot.com
Admin
Admin


Posts : 56
Join date : 2008-05-26

PostSubject: Re: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:30 pm

In case you have further queries about this task, please post them below and I'll answer asap.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://linguisticadeldiscurso.blogspot.com
javiers



Posts : 14
Join date : 2008-05-27

PostSubject: Re: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:13 am

As Jakobson puts it, the context is the thing referred to so I assume that when he talks about context he doesn't mean the place where the interaction occurs. Moreover, the referential function of language corresponds to the constitutive factor "context" that's why I related the analysis to the thing/s or/and person/s referred to in the content of the message. Am I mistaken? Do you think that I still missed sth in the description?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
florenciaonti



Posts : 8
Join date : 2008-05-28

PostSubject: Re: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:17 am

I agree with Javier in the fact that JaKobson defines context as the referent and he doesn't mention spatio-temporal factors, or at least is what I understood, that's why I didn't include the golf court in the context. But it's also true that my explanation for context was a bit short. Improved version: Context: (in the golf court) A discussion about their son Andrew (the referent) and his problems with drugs.
Why did you write constitutive factors in my feedback? I can't understand what do you mean by that. scratch
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Admin
Admin


Posts : 56
Join date : 2008-05-26

PostSubject: Re: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:21 pm

A place (e.g. a golf course), a time (e.g. tenses used by the speakers in the clip) are referents. So they are definitely included in the CONTEXT, and as such imply the REFERENTIAL function. Hope this answers your question.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://linguisticadeldiscurso.blogspot.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs   

Back to top Go down
 
TASK 2: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER Qs
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Negative feedback
» MKIII VTA help with negative feedback.
» Altering the feedback line on a VTA boarded ST-70/ST-120 amp
» Query Letter Feedback
» Geyper Man Action Man Task force Motorbike Little Black Wheel

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LINGÜÍSTICA :: JAKOBSON :: Speech event: Feedback for tasks 1-2. TASK 3 SET.-
Jump to: