The stranger in ethnolinguistic

513 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
513
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The stranger in ethnolinguistic

  1. 1. The stranger; a social type Zakie Asidiky 120 180 180 501
  2. 2. The situations are both literally and metaphorically • Liminal – The stranger is standing on the threshold, between the world outside and the world inside. • Adumbrating – The stranger shadow’s is cast before him, foreshadowing some immediate yet unknown events. • Epiphanic – Like the Magi in the Gospels, prototypical foreigners come from afar to witness the godhead of Christ shinning through the form of a human baby and a new covenant no longer limited to the chosen people: there is literally a shinning through of the light behind him. asidiky@gmail.com 2
  3. 3. The Stranger is characterized by Simmel into: • Position in space – The stranger is both wandering and fixed: Spatial relations ‘are the condition…and the symbol…of human relations’. • Position in time – ‘the person who comes today and stays tomorrow…a person without a history’. • Social position – For Simmel, the stranger, paradoxically, ‘like the poor and sundry “inner enemies” is an element of the group itself while not being part of it…to be the stranger is naturally a very positive relation: it is a specific form of interaction’. • Relational position – …is determined, essentially, by the fact that he has not belonged to it from the beginning, that he imports qualities into it, which do not and cannot stem from the group itself’. asidiky@gmail.com 3
  4. 4. Anomie Recognition Citizenship asidiky@gmail.com 4
  5. 5. Anomie; • In Guyjean’s ethics, anomie is a desirable state of affairs, the only one in which the individual is truly free to make authentic moral judgments. asidiky@gmail.com 5
  6. 6. Recognition; • Hegel: Recognition Is central philosophical system to the ethical In his analysis, there are three kinds of recognitions: Affective, Ethical and Social. asidiky@gmail.com 6
  7. 7. Affective recognition • Results from the other meaning-makers being well-disposed to the individual. Their attention, love, kindness is essential to the acquisition of self-confidence, a belief in the fact and value of our own existence. If affective recognition is withheld or withdrawn, personal identity is reduced, damaged or destroyed. asidiky@gmail.com 7
  8. 8. Ethical recognition • Implies that the individual is worthy of respect, both legally-he or she is an agentive subject having rights (the first of which is, of course, to be recognized as such)-and morallyhe or she is credited with the capacity to make moral distinctions. asidiky@gmail.com 8
  9. 9. Social recognition • Is the expression of the loyalty and solidarity which members of the group display to one another through their mutual inclusion in group activities. asidiky@gmail.com 9
  10. 10. Citizenship; • Citizenship is obviously a vital ingredient of social life and as a concept it goes some way to explaining what we might mean by ‘a sense of belonging, an expression which occurs sooner rather than later in almost any discussion of identity. asidiky@gmail.com 10
  11. 11. The criteria which delineates and constitutes ethnic and national groups 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The group has a name and other symbols The group’s main aim is survival (as a social group) The group has its distinctive practices The group recognizes a set of language varieties and (linguistic) value The group shares a commonsense world of social reality The group has internal structure The group may have a territory and bioethnic traits The group can identify strangers and has specific forms for interaction with them 9. The group has a history 10. Members are conscious of membership 1. 2. 3. Ethnodemographic variables Ethnosociological variables Ethnopolitical variables asidiky@gmail.com 11
  12. 12. PRAGMATIC FAILURE • Thomas (1983, p.99) defined and distinguished pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failures as follows: – Pragmatic failure … occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by speaker onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2. – Sociopragmatic failure … refers to the social conditions placed on language in use … while the pragmalinguistic failure is basically a linguistic problem, caused by differences in the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force, pragmatic failure stems from cross-culturally different perceptions of what constitutes appropiate linguistic behaviour. asidiky@gmail.com 12
  13. 13. A Case of pragmatic failure • Englishman : Can I give you a hand? • Japanese lady traveller (burdened with two suitcases, baby, etc.) : So sorry, so sorry, you are very kind – the Englishman could not tell whether the Japanese lady was accepting or refusing his offer, as what he took to be an act of apologizing does not have illocutionary force in his standard variety of English. asidiky@gmail.com 13
  14. 14. A case of sociopragmatic failure • American : …we must have lunch some time. • Foreigners : when? Tuesday? – Since Art Buchwald’s articles on the topic, this example has been the locus classicus for intercultural communicative failure. The source of misunderstanding lies in the high degree of idiomaticity of the expression, together with the fact that constitutive elements of the act of inventing are missing: as far as the American is concerned, this is simply a politeness formula along the same lines as ‘nice to meet you’ or ‘see you’. Again, though, it is interesting to speculate on the communicative sources of negative heterostereotypes, with US Americans being accused of superficial friendliness and ‘foreigners’ of being too pushy socially speaking. asidiky@gmail.com 14
  15. 15. Compensation strategies • Compensation strategies are plans of action to which speaker or hearer may have recourse when they are aware that their linguistic or communicative resources are for some reason inadequate to deal with the matter in hand, in other words, when they have a problem expressing themselves or understanding interlocuters. The lack of knowledge or competence need to be compensated for by other means if the problem is to be avoided or solved and a successful outcome achieved. asidiky@gmail.com 15
  16. 16. Some Compensation strategies • Topic avoidance – The speakers decide not to attempt to say or talk about X, because he does not feel competent to do so. This may be marked explicitly by such expression as ‘Let’s talk about Y instead’. • Message abandonment – Having started an attempt to communicate a message, the speakers give up because it is too difficult. This may be marked explicitly by such expressions as ‘I can’t say it in English’. • Self-repair strategies – Where the speakers try to solve the problem on his/her own • Collaborative strategies – Where the speakers try to recruit the help of his interlocutors asidiky@gmail.com 16

×