TASK 1: FEEDBACK AND FURTHER QUESTIONS

1. FALSE.

javiers, valeriaf, julietaf, elianaa, check back, it's the tenth not the ninth paragraph (maybe you reformatted the file or else you miscounted the paragraphs).

virginial, marinap, marianelab, you said it was true but in the first paragraph Jakobson only states he was asked to discuss the relationship between poetics (i.e. literature) and linguistics.

adrianaa, florenciaonti, vtrinidad, julietagrameg, rcamila, arianar, I agree with your comment, you should only check the paragraph number where he actually deals with his outlook on language.

micaelag, your answer seems OK but I can't quite get what you mean in the first sentence after "False".

beleni, gustavop, good work!

HOW ABOUT THE REST? (If I'm not mistaken there are three missing souls!)

2. FALSE.

javiers, virginial, beleni, marinap, adrianaa, marianelab, valeriaf, micaelag, julietaf, gustavop, vtrinidad, julietagrameg, rcamila, arianar, good job!

virginial, florenciaonti, mind the spelling of little Roman.

And the three lost souls?

3. FALSE.

javiers, gustavop, vtrinidad, julietagrameg, rcamila, arianar you said it was true but although Jakobson sort of inaugurated an amplification of the notions surrounding the speech event, his concern lies less on the pragmatic factors per se (such as the referent) than on the functions language purports. A central focus on the referent would have implied further analysis on the ways through which that referential goal is achieved, something discourse analysts after Jakobson will discuss throughout the second half of the 20th century and beyond.

beleni, OK on the whole though you should revise what you consider central in his theory.

marianelab, OK but the justification is a bit weak, don't you think?

valeriaf, OK but the justification doesn't seem to support your decision.

micaelag, florenciaonti OK but the justification doesn't seem to be strong enough.

marinap, florenciaonti mind spelling of poor Roman.

virginial, marinap, adrianaa, julietaf, elianaa you played safe by resorting exclusively to the actual words in the text. This strategy is probably a better option since we are visiting the theory first hand.

Do we have any chance that the lost souls will ever turn up?

4. FALSE.

javiers, virginial, beleni, marinap, marianelab, valeriaf, julietaf, elianaa, gustavop, vtrinidad, rcamila, arianar, awesome!

adrianaa, OK but you could have checked the etimology of the word yourself, right? Poor Roman, he can't do all the work, can he?

micaelag, OK but what do you mean it can stand on its own? As far as I can see, "-ive" is a suffix to derive adjectives so at least we should spot 2 morphemes, probably "conat-" (root of conation) and "-ive".

julietagrameg, OK but revise the etimology of the word.

florenciaonti, I'm afraid it was false, see your partners' explanations.

No lost souls in sight, I'm afraid.

5. FALSE.

javiers, virginial, beleni, marinap, marianelab, valeriaf, micaelag, julietaf, elianaa, gustavop, florenciaonti, julietagrameg, rcamila, arianar, well done!

adrianaa, OK but I don't quite agree with your justification.

vtrinidad, I'm afraid it was false, see other explanations.

arianar, check spelling of little Roman.

I give up, re lost souls chances aren't!

If you have any questions regarding this task, please post them below and I'll answer them asap.

I offer my most sincere apologies to Mr. Roman JaKobson.