in hospitality situations The role of the linguistic form 1 Leanne Schreurs 12th International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction of Linguistic Form and Meaning with Human Behavior ID: 489835
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Observing speech acts" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Observing speech acts in hospitality situations. The role of the linguistic form
1
Leanne
Schreurs
12th
International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction of
Linguistic Form and Meaning with Human Behavior
Columbia
University
February 14-16, 2015Slide2
“What
is hospitality
?”
Saxion Hospitality Business School (the Netherlands):Hotel & Tourism Management.
Methods of data collection and analysis need to be broadened
(cf.
Lashley & Morrison 2000; Robinson & Lynch 2007). The lack of linguistic research on how experiences of hospitality are shaped is unfortunate, as the experience of hospitality relies heavily on verbal social interactions (Robinson & Lynch 2007). An analysis of the linguistic forms related to hospitality.
2Slide3
Qualitative analysis of a hospitality situation
(1)
—¡Ah de la casa! —grita en cuanto arrima.
—Buenos días, señor Don José María —contesta Don Rufo saliendo al corredor, muy hospitalario y atento—. ¿Por qué no se desmonta y se cuela? —Con mucho gusto, si lo permite el amigo.
‘—Hi there! —he screams, while arriving [at the house].
—Good morning, Mr Sir José María —answers Sir Rufo while coming to the corridor, very hospitable and polite—. Why don’t you get off [the horse] and come in?
—With pleasure, if my friend allows me to do so.’ (Carrasquilla 1974 [1928]: 158)
3Slide4
Speech acts and linguistic forms
Speech acts (
Searle 1969):
To greet → Buenos
días, señor Don José
María.
‘Good morning, Mr Sir José María.’ Greeting, wishing the other person a good day; Formal address terms;D
ouble proper name.
To
invite
→
¿
Por qué no se desmonta y se cuela? ‘Why don’t you get off [the horse] and come in?’Interrogative
sentence
;Negation;Verb conjugations in 3rd person singular;Indicative mood.
4Slide5
Invitation speech acts: the imperativeTwo
linguistic
structures to
indicate invitations:Imperative, in
two
forms:informal, 2nd person singular/plural, indicative mood
, e.g., pasa
‘
come
in’
formal
, 3rd person singular/plural, subjunctive mood
,
e.g.,
pase (usted) ‘please come in’ Imperative forms may also convey commands or requests. The imperative as an invitation: repetition of the verb form, e.g.,
fuma, fuma
‘of course you may smoke’ (Matte Bon 1995 [1992]: 94).
The
degree of formality is not necessarily related to a certain degree of hospitality, but it seems that the formal construction has a higher connotation with hospitality than the informal one.
5Slide6
Invitation speech acts: question + negationQuestion
as a proposal:
negation
indicative moodInvitational structure to propose an activity to the interlocutor
(Matte
Bon 1995 [1992]: 319).The hospitality situation indicates that:hospitality
may be related to different linguistic systems interacting with the context
;
g
reetings
and invitations are speech acts that may be characteristic to hospitality
situations; the linguistic forms that may intervene in polite hospitality situations possibly are formal address terms, verb mood and interrogative structures with a negation.
6Slide7
Quantitative analysisDistribution analysis of scene types and linguistic forms
t
o observe general tendencies Results restricted to
La Marquesa de Yolombó (T
he Marchioness
of
Yolombó; Carrasquilla 1974 [1928])they cannot be generalized to hospitality situationsthey serve to elaborate upon the
hypothesis that linguistic forms may function as hints (Diver 1975)
to
hospitality.
7Slide8
Quantitative analysis: relationships and
situations
Table 1. Types of social relationships
8
Relatives
Non-
relatives
conjugal
partners
acquaintances
grandparent
<>
grandchild
boss <> servantparent
<> child
employer <> employee
parent in law <> child in law
friends
parents in law
godparent <> godchild
siblings
godparents
siblings in law
inhabitants
parent's sibling <>
sibling's
biological offspring
mayor <> inhabitant
neighbours
strangers
Conflictive
Non-
conflictivediscussionsencountersquarrelspleasant conversations
Table 2. Types of situations
Linguistic forms:
forms of address
verb moodSlide9
Proposition 1Given the expectation that hospitality situations are more likely to occur among non-relatives than among relatives,
it can also be expected that conflictive situations are
more likely to occur among relatives than among non-relatives.
(2) —¡Déjate de pendejadas, que
ya
no
eres ninguna niña de teta! Pero, si no lo
entiendes, oye
:
[…]
aquí
no
debo traer más mujer que
la
legítima
; y yo no puedo dormir solo porque me da mucho frío. —¿Asina es la cosa, su Merced? Pues, entonces
no se ponga a
esperar
un
mes: cuando el palomito arrastra el ala, hay que
buscarle
su
palomita
,
porque
persigue
las
gallinas
.
—¡Perra irrespetuosa! ¡Te vas de aquí agora mesmo! ‘—Don’t be silly, you’re not a little child anymore! But, if you don’t understand, listen: […] I should not bring here any other woman than the legitimate one; and I can’t sleep alone because I get cold. —That’s how it is, your Mercy? So, then don’t wait a month: when the pigeon drags his wings, one must look for his mate, because otherwise he’ll chase other hens. —
Disrespectful brat! Leave immediately!’ (C. 1974 [1928]: 166-167)9Slide10
Prop.1: relationships in relation to
situations
10
Table 3. Distribution of social relationships
across
situationsX2: 356,8 p<0,001
Conflict situations
Non-conflict
situations
Total
Relatives
354
466
820
77%28%
39%
Non-
relatives
1081187
1295
23%
72%
61%
Total
462
1653
2115
100%
100%
100%Slide11
Proposition 2
The
expectation is that V-forms are more likely to occur in hospitality situations, and therefore among non-relatives, then with relatives, who will show a relative preference for T-forms.
11
T
V
Tú
73
Vos
12
Usted
137
Usía
11
Su merced
140
Vuestra
excelencia
1
Total N
85
289
Table
4.
Classification
of the forms of addressSlide12
Prop.2: forms of address in relation
to
relationships
12Table 5. Distribution of forms
of
address
across relationships
X
2
: 5,6 p<0,05
Relatives
Non-
relatives
Total
V
118171289
72%
82%
77%
T
47
38
85
28%
18%
23%
Total
165
209
374
100%
100%
100%Slide13
Proposition 3If V-forms are related to hospitality situations and these situations are likely to occur in non-conflictive situations, we expect to see a relative preference of V-forms in non-conflictive situations, as opposed to T-forms for conflictive situations.
(3)
—¿Qué es lo que dice, Naciancena? —estalla
Doña
Antonina
—. Hágame el favor de repetir, porque no le entiendo
.
—¡
Eh,
Antoninita
! ¡Se viene
a hacer de las nuevas, usted
,
que
no les tapa nada! […] —¡La materia corrompida la tendrés vos y toda tu ralea, zamba atrevida y lengüilarga!
‘—
What
are you
(V) saying, Naciancena? —Mrs Antonina bursts out —. Please, do (V) me the favor of repeating, because I don’t understand you (V). —
Hey, Antoninita!
You’re (V) of the new kind, you (V) don’t cover up anything from them!
[…]
—
You (T) and all your (T) kind of people
are
the corrupted dirty
ones,
insolent
gossip half-breed
!’
(C. 1974 [1928]: 379)
13Slide14
Prop.3: forms of address in relation
to
situations
14Table 6. Distribution of forms of
address
across situations
X
2
: 11,7 p<0,001
Conflict situations
Non-conflict situations
Total
V
65
224289
65%
82%
77%
T
35
50
85
35%
18%
23%
Total
100
274
374
100%
100%
100%Slide15
Proposition 4If hospitality is more related to non-relatives, and the subjunctive mood indicates the relevance of an alternative (De
Jonge 2004,
Dreer 2007), we
should observe a relative preference for the use of subjunctive by non-relatives and indicative by relatives. (4) —Algo
semejante
me pasa con su sobrino. Conózcalo o no, voy a contar
todas
sus
fechorías
y
las de su abuelo Moreno.
Ya
él me dio permiso. —¡Valiente gracia! Hasta premio le da. Pero vea una cosa, Orellana: yo me atrevo
a suplicarle
que
cuente los milagros sin nombrar los santos. —Con mucho gusto,
Marquesa. Basta
con
que
usted
me lo
recomiende
.
‘—
Something similar happens to me with regard to your nephew.
It doesn’t matter if you know him or not, I’m
going to tell all his misdeeds and that of his grandfather
Moreno. He already gave me permission. —How funny! He will even reward you for that with a price. But please see (S), Orellana: I dare to beg you to tell (S) the miracles without revealing the names of the saints. —With pleasure, Marchioness. It is enough that you recommend (S) me to do so.’ (C. 1974 [1928]: 526-527)15Slide16
Prop.4: verb mood in relation
to
relationships
16Table 7. Distribution of verb
mood
across social relationships
X
2
: 7,7 p<0,01
Relatives
Non-relatives
Total
Indicative
435
548
983
70%
63,5%
66%
Subjunctive
183
315
498
30%
36,5%
34%
Total
618
863
1481
100%
100%
100%Slide17
Proposition 5The expectation
is that there is a preference for the subjunctive mood in non-conflict situations, since both would be the place for hospitality situations to occur.
17
X
2
: 0,9p<0,4Conflict situations
Non-conflict situations
Total
Indicative mood
223
760
983
64%
67%
66%Subjunctive mood
124
374
498
36%
33%
34%
Total
347
1134
1481
100%
100%
100%
Table
8. Distribution of
verb
mood
across situationsSlide18
ConclusionPreliminary results of the analysis of linguistic forms in relation to hospitality.
Qualitative analysis: address terms, verb mood and interrogative structures with a negation are linguistic forms that may intervene in hospitality situations
.
Quantitative analysis: hospitality situations are most commonly associated with non-relatives and non-conflict situations; non-relatives and non-conflict situations have a preference for V-forms over T-forms;
non-relatives show a relative preference for the subjunctive
mood; non-conflict situations do not show a preference for the subjunctive mood.Linguistic formsforms of address
verb mood
‼ work-in-progress
questions
negation
Suggestions for other
variables and for the experiment?
18Slide19
ReferencesBrown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In: Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.).
Style in Language
. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press: 253-276.
Carrasquilla, Tomás. 1974 [1928]. La Marquesa de Yolombó, edited by Kurt L. Levy. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. De
Jonge
, Bob. 2004. “The Relevance of Relevance in Linguistic Analysis: The Case of Spanish Subjunctive Mood.” In:
Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez Bachiller (eds.). Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam, John
Benjamins: 205-218.
Diver, William. 1975. “Introduction.” In:
CUWPL
2, pp. 1-20.
Dreer
, Igor. 2007. Expressing
the
same by the different: The Subjunctive vs the Indicative in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lashley
, Conrad, Paul Lynch, and Alison J. Morrison. 2007.
Hospitality: A Social Lens
. Amsterdam; Oxford: Elsevier. Matte Bon, Francisco and Iñigo Sánchez Paños. 1995 [1992].
Gramática
Comunicativa
del
Español
; T. 1: De la
Lengua
a la Idea. - T. 2: De la Idea a la
Lengua
. Madrid:
Edelsa
.
Robinson, Martha G. and Paul A. Lynch. 2007. “Hospitality through Poetry: Control, Fake Solidarity, and Breakdown.” International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 1 (3): 237-246. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19Slide20
FrequenciesForm of
address
N
%
V
289
77T
85
23
Total
374
100
20
Verb
moodN
%
Indicative
782
61Subjunctive
498
39
Total
1280
100
Speech
situations
N
%
Conflict
situation
462
22
Non-conflict situation
165378Total2115100Social
relationships
N
%
Relatives
820
39
Non-relatives
1298
61
Total
2118
100
Tabel 1.
Frequency
of Forms of
address
Tabel 2.
Frequency
of
Verb
mood
Tabel
3
.
Frequency
of Speech
situations
Tabel 4.
Frequency
of
Social
relationships