*sorry about earlier blank post.  

One of the things that I found interesting about the Pentecostal church meeting was that it was encouraged to interrupt the meeting when you felt the "spirit move you." I come from a different background in church you sat quietly and still in your chair and listened to the service.  You didn't yell out or disrupt the service, you were respectful to the priest sermon.  Being quiet was how you showed respect, were in the Pentecostal church participating in the sermon was the way to show respect.

The classroom setting that we have going for us right now is a very relaxed setting to what I was taught in elementary school.  You always called the teacher by there last name, they were not your friend but your elder.  You raised your hand when you had a question.  You were on time for class or you were in serious trouble.  The atmospheres was different because they were teaching you how to learn.  Where now teachers expect you to know how to learn, because your in college.  The classroom has a very warm atmosphere.  Where opinions are welcome and openly expressed.  The environment has been created to benefit learning, not to create a barrier between the teacher and the students.

hmm...

that's wierd. I did too Justin.

I found the church meeting in London to be pretty interesting. I think it's remarkabel that the pastor or speaker can keep his train of thought amidst all of the "amens" and "hallelujas". Can you imagine what would happen if that's what we did in class every time the prof said something of value? I'd be willing to bet they'd have a really hard time giving a concrete lecture and we as students would have an even harder time refocusing after someone gives a hearty "teach it prof!".
The setting of our speech situation is a classroom. The participants in the speech situation are poor, top ramen eating college students. Most of us grew up in Salt Lake and are fairly accustomed to all the formalities of a class room setting. The other participant is a younger, semi-formal (...kinda) professor. The intended purpose is for the students to gain an understanding of the subject. The sequence of actions generally goes as such: at students are chatting are doing homework from another class until around 9:30 when the professor addresses the class and starts lecturing. When this happens we figure that class has begun and focus our attention on her. She lectures, we take notes. Most of the time during class we break up into groups and discuss the topic for the day. When that time is up we again focus our attention on the professor as she keeps on lecturing or, if the time for class is almost up, explains an assignment to do for next time. The mood is fairly light and interactive. We are free to ask questions and even joke around with the professor. The medium that the speech is occuring is through people. The social norms surrounding this event are as follows: don't talk when the prof is talking unless called on for a response, follow instructions, if we break up into groups discuss the topic assigned, when the prof addresses the class take that as a sign that the class has begun and focus on her, the prof dismisses the students and that can be before the expected time or after depending. The genre of the speech event is a lecture/discussion in a classroom setting.
Something I found interesting in analyzing our speech setting is that a lot of the learning done in class comes from breaking off into groups and discussing the topic with our peers rather than solely through the teacher lecturing. When this happens we could easily talk about whatever's on our minds, having nothing to do with topic on hand, but the social norms surrounding this discussion time keep us on track. Most of the time we're afraid to break these norms and talk about something different for fear that our peers will get angry or think we're stupid and have nothing of value to say.

The reading was very inlightening and interesting to me:
the difference between participation and observation, if you wanted to do a study one a culture you need to do more then just study what they do, it goes far beyond observation, you need to get into the culture to really understand what they do and why.
even in school there is a culture there. there is a teaching/learning culture where everyone teaches at one point and everyone learns at another.
there is a certain culture at work, how you speak and how you sociallize with people, you would talk to someone differently at work then say at school. there is a higher level of respect for people when you are at work, you want to make the costimers happy, so you will treate they better they if you were just palling around with your friends.

When I read about the Pentecostal Meeting in London, it was very easy to read, partly because that is exactly how they speak when they are at a church service. they use their language differently then they would if they were at a store.

well to conclude: I found the reading interesting because I learned things I didn't know before.

...

Racism is a horrible thing and hopefully everyone else in class would agree, but having a prescriptive view of language doesn't always go along with racism. Growing up, everyone is taught the correct grammatical rules of the American English language. We all studied it and were tested on how well we knew these rules. As students it's impossible to view the English language in a descriptive manner. If we do, we would fail or tests, score horribly on our papers and butt heads with our teachers. So being prescriptive doesn't nessasarily mean that you are racist. The racism comes into play when we fail to recognize that other cultures and sub-cultures have their own way of speaking that follows certain rules and is generally learned by association. It comes into play when we buy into the stereotypes that are generally paired with certain dialects. It comes into play when we don't respect somebody because of the way they talk or try to dissassociate ourselves from them because of the stigma that's been attached to them. When a prescriptivist calls a certain dialect wrong, I feel like that is racist, but I don't see a problem with presciptivists trying to teach the grammatical rules surrounding the English language to a people with a particular dialect. Without the teaching of the rules of English, it seems the language would fall apart. How would great books and stories be written without a proper understanding of how the English language works? It doesn't seem likely to happen.

Papua New Guinea

Wow! This is amazing. The structure of the way they have rules to yell at one another is simply brilliant. I can't truely believe it but at the same time I do. I need to witness this for my self. Just picturing someone this pissed, yelling at some other from their own house is histerical. No one can dispute this fight and the only one who can is the one who is angry therefore it lasts for a long time. There are even rules for the oppressee to engage back in defence.

This is complete different from the way we were raised. I my religon we are taught the complete oppisite of the way these people reinact with each other. But yet it is truly remarkable.

Speaking softly

I enjoyed reading about the village people of Gapon and how they expressed their anger in the manner of kros. Its interesting how different cultures and peoples of the world deal with their emotions. Anymore, at least in this country, people hide their feelings and repress their aggressive or inappropriate behaviors and thoughts in order to continue on with the week or whatever else is taking place in their lives. I like the approach to letting it out instead of boiling it up and not having to take great offense to whats being said. Its a cultural norm and completely appropriate with the values of this particular culture.

Analyzing our classroom setting:
(S) This speech event is located in an institutionalized setting. In a small room designated as a classroom. (P) In this event there are students and a teacher; roles are infrequently shared amongst one another, but the teacher generally plays the role of the speaker and the students as the audience or participants. Likewise though the speaker role is shared within the group at turn. (E) The purpose of this event is to inform and instruct students about specific subject and to engage those students in that subject. It can also be seen as a way to make something of oneself in the society in which he/she lives; by obtaining credits which in turn label your success. (A) The speech acts that are involved in this event are describing things, asking questions, making request and giving particular instructions. (K) The manner in which this events tonality occurs, ranges from serious to joking in which any instance a teacher can be describing something that involves a more serious outlook or a sarcastic one, both of which instill meaning equally. A casual setting in which the tones mimicked. (I) The channel of medium is predominantly spoken, sometimes written. The language variety is aimed at making appropriate relationships between the participants. Its structured informally, but not excessively, in which the communication reflects current generations and symbolic meanings. (N) The norms; being attentive and respectful, not talking out of turn, listening to someone when they speak, etc. (G) Whats drawn on most at this point is past experience, belief systems, values; an accumulative of the self throughout the lifespan.

The most interesting thing about using this device is the way it slowly unfolds the dynamics of the entire situation. I liked breaking down the parts individually leaving the next slightly easier. Using this as a guide was really helpful in understanding ethnographic analysis.

Papua New Guinea and Speech Situation/ Event of our Classroom

I found Kros to be very fascinating. I can’t help but contrast it to the way in which we Westerners express anger. Although we all have different ways of conveying our anger, I wonder if we too have a defined way in which we each individually express it. The people of Papua New Guinea have a defined understanding (norm) in which they let others know that they are upset with someone. This leads me to question whether or not our context for expressing anger is the same. We may yell and curse when we are angry, but we are also passive aggressive and possibly vindictive. If we had Kros in the United States, how would that change the way in which we deal with conflict?

In our classroom, our Speech Event and Situation are a bit different than other classrooms. Although it is the same in its structure, (Come to class, take notes, do homework etc.) it is more loosely defined than many of my other classes. The power structure between Tiffany and the students is more relaxed and open. I feel that Tiffany is willing to relate to us on own level, and in return it creates a different reaction from the students. We give respect and control to her, yet we know that we a big part of the conversation as well. That’s another thing, our Speech Situation is different in the sense that we are in more of a conversation than a lecture. Because we analyze many things that we as students have never thought about before, we are all learning from both the teacher and from one another. I appreciate this class because it is different in its structure, which encourages me to learn and participate in a different way than I am used to.

At least the Holy Ghost is polite...

Faith – what an interesting word... idea... topic... theme... motive... device... to be honest, I'm not sure how to classify faith. But nonetheless, it has the power to compel people to kindness or to killing. It's because of this power that I feel it important to learn and respect the faiths of others.

So... I enjoyed the reading on the Pentecostal congregation and the interesting correlation it presented regarding faith and social science. For the members, what they say or interject is randomly dictated by the Holy Ghost. However, the data analysis shows a pattern indicating that the members are competent in the unwritten rules of their speech community.

Which is it then? (EDITED) I guess that depends on who you ask and how they reconcile the disparity between religion and science. Faith may still say that the Holy Ghost prescribes to his own speech rules – and that he just happens to be very polite.

Moving on to the discourse analysis. The Speech Event that I will focus on is our Mini-Group interactions (when we're asked to turn our chairs and interact for a brief moment with our peers sans professor).

Having gone through the acronym SPEAKING there were a couple interesting (to me) elements that I will briefly question or bring up.

First – Participants. How do we choose our groups? Do we really just randomly turn to the individuals around us or are there ulterior motives in who we wish to meet? Do we exclude/include ourselves from certain groups based on prejudices or preferences? Why do we always sit in the same seats when there is no assigned seating?

Second – Purpose. The obvious purpose is to accomplish what was assigned by the teacher. However, secondary to this, within the groups the students are able to take on speaking roles that they may otherwise not have in the conventional class setting. Additionally, these activities create a level informality, expanding our comfort zone with other students that allows for greater class participation as a whole.

In order to create a speech community we need opportunities to speak.

I thought it interesting to note the kind of variances in expected behavior derived from gender between the United States and the people of Papau New Guinea.

You may notice the much of the Kros catharsis is primarily relegated to females and that the language of choice is dying. On the other side, males organize themselves in terms of their grievances around a certain council which "downplays anger or conflict and emphasizes consensus; men in this forum are sometimes explicitly critical of people (mainly of women) who quarrel and fight" (Cameron 64). Is this not similar to the kind of chuckle misogynists give when seeing the supposed "cat fight" between women here in the United States?

Moreover, it is likely that the most of the students aren't aware of whether or not only men can take leadership of a Pentecostal church - how many of individuals assumed that the Pastor and Elder are both male and much of the congregants female?

From the content of both our dialogue and from our many readings, I think it would be best to comment more explicitly on the "E" or "ends" part of Dell Hyme's device - that the process of teaching is not intellectual dialogue but rather a system of educational banking (that is, of the system posited by Paulo Freire). The purpose, then, is to enable the former to occur.

Post 3

In the reading "Ethnography of Speaking," it was very interesting to read the dialog used in a Pentacostal worship service. At first I thought it was funny. I then considered what I might think if I was not in a mood for humor; this dialog would make me happy just because it is mostly positive things said with a lot of positive energy.
A speech situation in class involves many different things. The setting is a classroom with participants including a teacher and students. During this time in the classroom, the teacher instructs the students and the students respond and give their own input with the intended purpose of the participants to learn more about different ways of speech. The mood of the class can be positive or negative, depending on how each individual in the class feels about the topic being discussed. The language and vocabulary used is whatever best fits the topic being discussed, since it would be very confusing to use terms that did not fit with the topic being discussed. Interaction would be, first, the teacher giving some instruction, like talking for a while or asking a question to start a class discussion. The class should involve themselves as much as possible in order to make it a superb learning experience for everyone. The genre is whatever type of topic the class happens to be talking about; in general, for this class, the genre is language and how it is used.

Ethnography of Speaking

I found the practice of the kros to be very interesting. One aspect of it that I found intriguing was the fact that the people in Gapun have two languages; an older language, Taiap, that is used primarily by women and is used in the kros, and a newer language, Tok Pisin, that is used among men, who generally do not participate as actively as women do in the kros. At the time the article was written, it was said that anyone under the age of 14 only knew how to speak Tok Pisin, which most likely means that the Taiap language will soon become obsolete.

Analysis of class speech situation:The genre of speech is class discussion, which takes place in a classroom setting. The participants are the students, whose purpose is to contribute to the discussion and to learn, and the teacher, whose purpose is to teach the students and help them understand the subject. The sequence of events is usually something along the lines of: teacher comes in, she presents the topic of the day’s lesson, she writes notes on the board while engaging the students in a discussion about the subject matter, students voice their ideas and ask questions, the lesson ends, the teacher explains the homework assignment, class ends. The mood of the class is usually very relaxed, with the teacher and the students conversing without many formalities, such as hand-raising. The language used is oral and written, with many of the students taking notes on what the teacher writes on the board. Finally, the norms of interaction are that the students show respect for the teacher by paying attention and participating, by being on time for class and not being disruptive. The teacher leads the class and controls where the conversation goes. What I find interesting about this analysis is that it describes a speech environment that is similar to most of the classes that I, and probably most other students, have been in for my entire school career.

Pentecostal Kros

In the reading it talked about the proceedings in a Pentecostal church in London. I thought it was interesting how they direct their meetings. It talked about how an elder of the church called on a member to come up and testify. While the member testifies, anyone can interject and say whatever they feel inclined to say. It was an informal setting in that it wasn't a structured speech event. The other part of the reading talked about public displays of anger in Papua New Guinea. They call these displays "kros". It said that it is not unusual to hear loud shrills coming from the villagers' homes at the end of the day. What I thought was interesting was that it is an unwritten rule to allow people to have these outbursts. It talked about how work-related stress is a great contributor to "kros". I don't think it is that much different in our own culture. The only difference is that we like to yell in private. Americans typically don't like others to know of their problems.

Ethnography of Speaking

one thing i found interesting was, how it is reformed in the text it self that before the testifiers goes on to tell the story there is many prayers in sequence and then the testifiers goes on telling his testimony.

like talked about in the class on Thursday, our classrooms in the US are a lot more relaxing that in many other places. like one of our class mates from Russia said that in her countries they stud up when the teacher comes in the classroom as a sign of respect. here in the US that would be very weird because that is out of our norm.

in our classroom we do have the teacher as the lead person but we all are also expected to have our inputs of the subject we are discussing. all have the expectation to take good notes to study from because we are in a more free minded environment.

Ethnography: Situations and Events

The pattern found in the Pentecostal meeting example in our reading was very interesting. The people from the church thought the Holy Spirit was invoking them to randomly participate in the meetings by shouting out during the meetings. However, the ethnographer found a pattern in the speech the church goers had not realized. This is interesting because it shows people subconsciously pick up on specific cues in order to know what is /is not appropriate in speech situation.

I also thought our last class discussion about American classrooms was very interesting. I observed my next class that day paying close attention to the power levels between the instructor and the students. Everything fit into what we had been discussing. The teacher held a certain amount of power because of the control over the grades, but the students had power in the attention, or lack there of, they were expressing toward what was being discussed. Each time students began to check the clock, text message or any other variety of expression of lack of interest, the lecture would take a turn. The instructor was controlling the discussion by following a planned speech to the students, but the students were also controlling the discussion by their attention levels.

Ethnography of Speaking

I found the Kros very interesting on how they get rid of their anger by chanting how they are feeling. Im sure that everyone one has had those long stressful days, many people will get rid of their stress/anger in many different ways but this one is one of the more interesting ways that i have heard of. I also liked how they tried to avoid any physical situations that might come out from that.

Our class room is a very respectful environment. The teacher is in front of the class making sure everything goes as planned and also to teach the students. I feel that she is the one in charge, but a very open class. Everyone has a say in the class and can give their opinion at anytime, and everyone gives everyone else respect when they are talking.

post 3

The Kros was very interesting. I think it is great that they are able to express their anger through speaking/yelling rather than physically. I myself have witnessed a Kros, but they were not so disciplined. There are many rules for Kros, and it is very different than just an arguement.
Our classroom environment is very free of judgment. We are able to give our opinions and talk about them. Everyone, including the teacher, is very open minded. The class is set up like a normal classroom. There are desks set up in rows that all face the teacher and the white board. The teacher goes through her lesson plan while involving the students. Most students are taking notes and most particpate. The point of the whole meeting is for the students to learn and retain as much information as possible. The teacher holds the power. She expands on the subject and asks for students opinions and make sure they are following.

ethnography of speaking

I liked reading about the Penecostal meeting in South London. Everyone there was very religious and whenever they went to church to worship they did not know how long the service was going to be. I loved that they would give up everything just to worship the God that they believed to be the true and loving God that would take them to heaven in the end.
The ethnography of speaking through the terminology SPEAKING that we briefly studied about in class is a hard concept to grasp. After hearing about other cultures and how they address there education, it has come to let me know that we have a very relaxed way about going and getting our education.
In our classroom, it is very relaxing and enjoyable environment. I feel that the teacher is the one in charge trying to make the class go smoothly but I feel everyone has a voice in our class which makes it interesting and enjoyable. I also feel that through everyones voice or input in the class helps people learn not only from the teacher giving us the information but also through each and every students point of view of the material being given to us to learn. I feel with this relaxing and enjoyable environment everyone can get the most out of what the teacher is trying to portray to the students, but one aspect that probably is not the best or most accomodating is that to take control back the students can not pay attention because of boredom or some other aspect happening in there current lifestyle.

Reply to Ethnography of Speaking

I found the reading about "Kros" to be interesting because it is so different than what I am used to when it comes to displaying anger. I mean it talks about how it can be done in public and may occur at any time of day or night. It is also interesting how it starts out low and then grows into something large. Then the villagers one by one start to listen and ask the question 'Em kros long wanem?" ('what's/he kros about?'). That was also interesting to me.


I will discuss the participants of the classroom or who takes part in the speech event, and in what role.

The participants are the students and the teacher. The students role(s) are usually to take notes, to listen, to respond when asked to do so, and to be on time and be prepared for class. What is expected according to certain roles and what actually happens is different usually. The students sometimes respond when asked and sometimes they don't according to various reasons. They usually take notes only when the teacher asks them too or when she writes something on the board. Listening usually is done passively and most of the time the students are thinking about something else not involved with the classroom. Being prepared for class can mean many different things. The norm of being prepared I believe is to have a pen and paper and at least be half-way awake in order to take in the required information
The teachers role is to get the class discussion started, involve the students as much as she can in the conversation, have notes and a certain structure or organization to follow, and to be in the class on time and prepared. The teacher should be awake and get the discussion or speech started immediately. She most likely should involve the students however this is not mandatory. Most lectures are done where the teacher speaks and at the end of class he/she assigns what needs to be done for next class and dismisses them. She should have notes on what she wants to talk about or some kind of structure to follow or everything would be a mess and there would be no format to follow. She should also be there on time to be a role for the students to be on time. She should not be on time just for the students but as a teacher she is representing her school name and being on time is a good character of judgment.
The role of the teacher is a leader, she usually does the speaking and engages the students. The role of the students is usually in the form of the follower. They listen to the teacher and respond when asked to do so. The teacher gives out grades and talks about her subject. The students listen, study and respond to her subject by taking tests, doing assignments, and getting involved in classroom discussion.