the arbitrary but conventionalized forms of educated standard English. It is clear from the finding above of an independence between these two systems of language behavior that rather than being a function of cognitive skill or competence, literacy both oral and written, are accountable in terms of the sociocultural practices of the community. Thus, our students use whatever pattern they deem appropriate of presentation within the context of the assignment, showing that language behavior is a function of the sociocultural environment rather than of internal processes of modes of thinking, etc. (For a controversial contrastive view, see Bernstein, 1974, and Rosen & Rosen, 1976.)

[8.5.5.2] The Meaning of Conversational Environment. Social psychologists tend to define the social environment by reference to demographic institutional, and personality factors. For instance, conformity in conduct is attributed to the institutions of child rearing, socialization, and mass media influences. Similarly, intergroup conflict is viewed as behavioral consequences attributable to socioeconomic, ethnic, and other traits that mark the person's habits and appearance. When treating the issue of language behavior, social psychologists similarly define variation as socioliguistic, i.e., as attributable to ethnic, socioeconomic, and contextual features pertaining to the conversation (e.g., role relationship between participants, place of the conversation, background of participants, etc.) (See Gumperz, 1976; Hymes, 1974; Among others.)

Note that the above methodological strategy requires the identification of units of language behavior that are functionally related to independently defined social factors: e.g., accent is related to region, grammar is related to socioeconomic class or education, complexity of structures and arguments are related to intelligence or special training, and so on. Thus, the units to be identified are drawn from a special pool, i.e., those language behavior units that are functionally related to the social parameters already identified and researched extensively in connection with social behavior generally.

H5

While the above traditional methodology serves the useful purpose of integrating language behavior into the framework that serves for behavior in general, one disadvantage has been that it excludes the possibility of characterizing a particular community independently of social parameters found significant in another community. The latter is however the very purpose which we wish to achieve, namely, the cataloging of units of behavior such that the units correspond functionally to those in actual use in the community. Another way of saying this is that there are reasons for wanting to identify cataloguing practices of a community, i.e., practices or habits relating exclusively to what's being noticed in any particular setting or situation. In doing this, the social psychologist is attempting to identify not the laws of behavior in terms of psychological concepts of theory and dynamics, but rather the definitions participants have for events in an episode, vis., what they see, what they react to, what they remember or note for later telling, and so on. For this kind of investigation, the internal evidence itself is made use of without requiring personal background information as to the ethnicity, etc. of the participants. (For a contrastive view see Jakobovits, 1966; Osgood, May and Miron, 1975.)

We are raising an important methodological issue which requires full and adequate treatment. This cannot be done here, but we want to illustrate some of the issues involved with a concrete example: the problem of defining the notion of "conversational environment" objectively. Intuitively, it is clear that saying something in the course of a conversation is an adequate device for introducing a change in the sociocultural environment of the participants, i.e., saying something can arouse reactions on the part of hearers in the same way that altering the physical or physiological environment can produce reactions. In fact, saying thing in the course of verbal exchanges constitutes the most prominent method use in human communities for affecting the sociocultural environment, especially when we include saying things to one's Self.

Despite this prominence of verbal exchanges in the community the objective definition of what constitutes a functional conversational spot is difficult to obtain in the most ordinary of situations. As Goffman has argued, few verbal exchanges can be explained, even in crude terms, using such devices as Question/Answer, Request/Legitimization, Attack/Defense, Mover/Reply Move, and the like, for it is quickly discovered that most of talk in natural situations is totally spontaneous and reactive. This means that talk, like other behavior, is responsive to contingencies in the environment rather than to deliberate or conscious strategies of moving and responding to moves, and therefore, the functional units are to be discovered independently of conscious strategies. We intend to show that the functional units of talk in conversation are occasioned by parameters that are independent of conscious awareness, hence inaccessible by methods that average subjective reports as in survey research or experimental data dependent on instructions. The latter issue is of very importance in

H6

contemporary social psychology which relies heavily on an experimental strategy that attempts to control and set the "real" environment of subjects through manipulating conscious features by means of verbal or written instructions. (See the discussion in Chapter *, Section [8.2].)

The objective definition of conversational environment can be approached through the delimitation of segments of conversation which are independently defined from such subjective features as topic or content of talk. We shall illustrate this possibility using the transcript already discussed above and attributed to individual A.

Note that the episode involves four persons identified in terms of their appearance as follows:

Figure 1:

The FORM of a Transcript.

1. AY

2. RT

3. EK

4. LT

It should be remarked that the transformation of a conversational episode into successive linked chains of talking turns identified by an ordinal number is a natural and obvious solution though it does not constitute a logical necessity, and other possibilities would seem to us to exist. Harvey Sacks (1966), in his unpublished lectures at UCLA, Davis (and mimeographed verbatim) has treated this issue extensively and ably. It is clear form the collections in the Daily Round Archives that our students regard the transcripting task in terms of talking turns as normal, thus suggesting that it is also a community cataloguing practice. (See Section [8.5.5.3] below for further treatment of this issue.)

The second step in transformation consists of listing the ordinal number associated with each talking turn for every participant, thus:

Figure 2a:

The STRUCTURE of a Transcript

1. AY 2. RT 3. EK 4. LT

1 2 6 8

3 4 9 14

5 7 11 19

12 10 16 21

15 13 18 23

35 17 20 24

39 29 22 27

49 30 25 31

51 33 26 32

52 34 28 37

54 36 41 38

55 42 43 40

57 45 46 44

59 48 50 47

61 76 58 53

64 79 63 60

67 89 65 62

69 95 73 66

71 81 68

75 83 70

77 86 72

82 90 74

85 92 78

87 94 80

91 97 84

93 99 88

96 101

98

100

102

Tabulating the talking turns in the above manner (Figure 2a) more nearly brings out the consequences of the first transformation, i.e., of treating a conversation as a sequence of interactive links. For example, it shows that the transformation is topological, viz., the four-dimensional phenomenon known as conversational episode (place-time specifications) receives a topographic projection whose mathematical or geometric properties can be exploited for describing less visible features of verbal interactional activities. For example, counting the number of interventions or measuring the length of the line five a characterization of each participant's behavior: this too is a major theoretical step that needs careful treatment. In other words, merely counting the number of interventions does not constitute a characterization; instead, it constitutes a measure of participation for this particular observed event. We are proposing, however, to upgrade the significance of the count into a measure of role type, or some such term denoting characteristic behavior. (See Chapter 9, Section [9.3.II.2.1 -2D].)

We must stress the fact that we are not saying that a single conversational episode is sufficient to characterize the habitual behavior of an individual. In fact, we do not believe that it is possible at this stage to say how many observations would be needed to characterize the habitual talking behavior of an individual. This issue remains to receive a solution. Therefore, it is best to reserve the notion of characterization of individuals until other problems have been solved first. In particular, the issue of characterizing role behavior is much easier since we are then dealing with the problem of how to catalogue community practices in conversations, -- a much simpler task for the present.

In terms of the notion of role type, then, we can say that number of interventions, and their distribution, are indices of a person's habitual conduct in social situations, while at the same time we are to stress that "social situations" must not for our purposes be defined in terms of an arbitrary set of variables chosen by an investigator, whatever the variables may be. Instead, we'd like the leeway, for the present, not to have to define it for the sake of a more valid and appropriate attempt later, when further issues have been examined.

To illustrate these matters more concretely, we can present some analyses of the distribution shown above (Figure 2a) and discuss the important theoretical and methodological issues involved in our solutions:

(a) density can be take to refer to the number of interventions per unit time or place. Thus, for the episode as a whole, AY has the densest role type with 30 out of the total share of 102. The mathematical allocation of equal likelihood would lead to 25 as the average density. In these terms, RT is the least dense with 18; LT and EK register a similar role type with 27 and 26, respectively.

(b) distributional patterns can be taken to represent the group's interactional contingencies with each other. For instance, looking at AY's scores, one can note a break between 39 and 49. This is a most interesting transition point given the fact that it is the only one when logically several may be possible. Looking at the profiles in Figure 2a, we can summarize the breaks as follows:

Figure 2b:

The STRUCTURE of a Transcript

1. AY 1 through 15 ... [16-34] ... 35 through 39 ... [40-48] ... 49 through 102

2. RT 2 through 17 ... [18-28] ... 29 through 48 ... [49-75] ... 76 through 79 ...

[80-88] ... 89 through 95

3. EK 6 through 28 ... [29-40] ... 41 through 99 ....................................

4. LT 8 through 88 ......................................... [89-100] ... 101 ............

The above representation constitutes the third step in the theoretical transformation of the phenomenon of conversation. Here, too, the issues involved are to be more fully elaborated. Note the consequences of this third transformation. Reading the tabulation , we can say that AY, for instance, exhibits five distinct distributional environments: three of these are characterizable as conditional of talking participation, namely talking turns 1 through 15, 35 through 39 and 49 through 102. The tow remaining zones represent conditions of non-talking participation, namely talking turns [16-34] and [40-48]. Note that, in these terms, RT and LT contrast interestingly, in that RT's role type involves smaller zones of participation as talker than LT's. The problem remains to be worked out as to the mathematics that is best suitable for typifying distributional patterns of this order of abstraction.

H8

Note that it would seem to be difficult for an individual to deliberately affect these distributions in the course of the conversation; it would be much easier to control density of intervention by either talking a lot through frequent turn taking or not taking any turns at all. Of course, such deliberate efforts would upset the natural dynamics of the interaction and would thus be noticed and dealt with by the others. However, the control of distribution requires skilled and appropriately timed interventions, much more likely to occur with role type enactment, i.e., automatically, spontaneously, and unreflectively. As well, hearers cannot ordinarily judge accurately objective factors that undergo mathematical transformation (e.g., distributional parameters).

To illustrate the use of data distribution, we will present two different methods, each suitable for different investigative purposes.

(a) The method of group structures. This method involves the assumption that a conversation is a linear process marked off into distinct zones by reference to which the possible sub-grouping are actualized. For example, the conversation we are considering has four participants, which allows for a

number of possible zones:

[AY + RT + EK + LT]

is a formal expression that designates one possible zone, i.e., where all four individuals are talking participants at the same time. Thus, by looking at the

representation in Figure 2b, we can determine that talking turns 8 through 15 is the only zone in the transcript that satisfies this condition, a stretch of only eight talking turns out of the 102.

H9

This is once again a most interesting finding, though of course it needs further documentation. It is interesting because it shows that apparent participation is different from functional participation. The importance of this may be seen when viewing the distribution that is established by taking "vertical slices" of the distribution data given above (in Figure 2b):

Figure 3:

Functional Zones in a Transcript

talking turns functional zones span size

2 through 7 [AY + RT ] 4

8 through 15 [AY + RT + EK + LT] 8

16 through 28 [ EK + LT] 11

29 through 34 [ RT + LT] 6

35 through 39 [AY + RT + LT] 5

41 through 48 [ RT + EK + LT] 8

50 through 75 [AY + EK + LT] 25

79 through 88 [AY + EK + LT] 10

89 through 95 [AY + RT + EK ] 7

96 through 99 [AY + EK ] 4

Reading this table reveals important features of the phenomenon of conversation. For example, it may be noted that the above distribution projects a process flow that defines ten conversational zones for the episode we are discussing. Each zone is defined in terms of a formal expression that identifies the role type of each individual in terms of talking participant vs. non-talking participants. Note, too, that this zonal delimitation is independent of topic or density intervention, hence it is both objective and ordinarily free from conscious control in spontaneous exchanges.

The distribution in Figure 3 can be taken as a matrix that objectively defines the conversation under study. This is an important theoretical development analogous to the "S" of linguistics, where it stands for the top or highest element in a derivational tree of a Sentence. Here, we are proposing a notation system whereby every Conversation is associated with a tree structure having as its highest ordered element "C," which is fully defined by the matrix type such as the one above.

There are several possible rules that can be followed in the generation of the matrix type for a conversation. For instance, the rule we've applied to generate the above matrix type can be stated as follows:

I. Delineate the longest possible zone in which a group of individuals maintain a joint status throughout the zone;

II. Try maximizing the size of the group.

Rule I is applied before Rule II. The first object generated by this notation is [AY + EK + LT] which is shown in the matrix above as the section 50 through 75, i.e., a zonal span of 25 talking turns. The second object is [ EK + LT], which is given as talking turns 16 through 28, i.e., eleven turns. In the same manner the other objects defining the matrix are derived.

H10

Further work remains, in particular, theoretical issues as to whether notations should maximize length rather than group size, and whether the requirement of "joint status throughout" can be relaxed at the ends.

13

[8. 5. 21

[8.5.2] Uses of the DRA. We envisage two principal uses for these archivesO One is educational and the other is research. The educational benefits fall in two categories: the collection of data, per se, and the analytic treatment thereof. At the present time these are to be considered experimental working hypotheses which w~ are attempting to document as we go along. We have plenty

Hl

of opportunity to hear favorable reactions (and in a minority of cases, unfavora~le) but we feel that evaluative reactions or ratings represent but a small amount of the total variance in a student's actual contact in a course, and therefore, there is need for better and more behavioral measures than the averaging of subjective ratings of students. (See Chapter 2. )

The collection of data involving such materials is a standard feature of Psychology 222, and the majority of students contribute their data to the Archives. In either case, the collection per se is emphasized as important for the objective study of the Self in one's natural daily community environment. The requirements of following a standard and complex instructional assignment is a context for practicing and learning a writing register that is indispensable in many places in the community (e. g., science, management, communications, education, community action, and so on wherever educated literacy is a component skill to to the ~eF~nn ~ q ~ rtivi ti~

As well, the content of the reports constitutes explicit facts about the person which are not usually exposed to one's deliberate view. Students have

* Throughout this report, we have identified N propositions as Research Hypotheses ("H") to be investigated.

H2

[8. 5.31 reported that they were surprised at many of the facts that emerged. Also, looking at the content of data from classmates is often the first opportunity students have to see contrasts and similarities concerning ordinary day to day business. Even if anonymous, the data are illuminating in that they serve as a reference point not unlike survey reports do. The student's awareness and understanding should therefore be enhanced, which is again a conclusion that needs documentation.

Finally, students are taught methods of systematic tabulation and data slicing, which are at the heart of learning, practicing, and gaining an understanding of the scientific research method of investigation. Students who wish to do more extensive analytic and experimental studies involving the Archives materials can do so by taking the follow up courses we are (~., Psych 397, 499, 661).

In connection with the second use of the Archives, namely research, the possibilities have not been fuliy worked out though it is obvious that such collections are of interest to several sectors of academic domains (viz., social psychology, individual differences, cross-cultural comparisons, psycholinguis'dcs, ethnosemantics, ethnography, sociolinguistics, ~community psychology, clinical psychology, home economics, architecture, social engineering, anthropology, public administration, mental health, English as a Second Language, etc. ~ in short, wherever information onthe daily round as natural human habitat is needed).

[8.5.3] Procedures for Contributions and Use. Besides the students of Psychology 222, other students we work with at the undergraduate and graduate level also make contributions from time to time inasmuch as we advise them of

18. 5.4] the value of performing the task of collection and ~nalysis. As well, anyone may contribute whether or not they wilI be _further involved with the project. All contrlbutions must meet the format specifications which we provide in written in9tructions. (see Chapters 9 and 11. ) These instructions specify the information to be collected and the exact details to be re_corded. As well, the instructions discuss the issue of protection of privacy of the contributor and the people that may be mentioned in the reports, particularly the necessity of disguising iden~ity information. All Archives data are anonvmous and there is no way of recovering individual identit ~ nrP thi~ infnrm~ti~n ic ~ tr~vf~(1 ,.n.7f, th made an official part of the Archives.

Qualified researchers, investigator, and students, who are interested in examining the Archives materials may do so by permission. Please contact us at the Psychology Office, leaving your name, telephone number, and message for our return call.

[8 . 5 . 4] Thevretical and Methodological Significance . Though we have different disciplinary background and training, our professional careers have overlapped and resulted in what we judge to be a very useful collaboration. Dr. Barbara Gordon's doctoral dissertation at Columbia University (1962) had as its main objective, the discovery of hypothetically postulated correla~ons between cognitive processes and linguistic features; these she called "linguistic-cognitive correlates; they occupied the focus of research and attention of many educators in the 1960's involved in new and large scale federal programs for the so called ~'disadvantaged minorities" (see, ~ ~., Aarons, Gordon~ and Stewart, 1969, which reviews this literature in depth).

[8. 5.4]

The search for linguistic-cognitive correlates has mushroomed into such flelds as educational linguistics, applied psycholinguistics, ethnolinFuistics, and sociolinguistics, though it should be said that these fields have had more than one founding theme and, certainly, have evolved in the 1970's to include such well lmown current issues as bilingual education, language teaching, community linguistics, language planning, problems of dialect and Standard English as a Dialect, and possbily others.

These applied features of a specialized interest in language behavior have been varialsly discussed in the theoretical literature under such specific topics as discourse analysis, kinesics, ethnomethodology, cognitive processes, test and measurement, theory of programming, semantics, rhetoric, composition, artificial intelligence, and possibly others (see Clarke and Clark, 1977; Sudnow, 1972; Carr, 1972; Rosen and Rosen, 1973; Gumperz, 1972; Pawley, 1977; Carroll and Freedle, 1972; and many others). T~hese theoretical interests share the common methodology which also unites them; this methodology consists of the attempt to

nn.c:trll~t ~ natllral Se~~ n~ nf h.oh~vinr_ niS~nllrse an_alv~;~ nrY~t,os: nn

natural social products, namely recorded streams of speech occuring in some social sefflng at some definite time and place. Kinesics reconstructs the formal representation of actual gestures performed in naturally occuring conversations. ]~iscrete point testing of linguistic-cognitive correlates starts with the theoretically significant parameters of actual behavior in the form of skills whose parameters operationally define competence. In simpler form, we can say that tests are basicallv inventories of behavioral habits we may call "communitv PraCtiCeS. "

[8. 5. 4] This is particularly visible in the case of scholastic achievement tests where the acbiever must conform to a fairly narrow (one might say, 'nationalistic' here) deffnition of knowledge and educational process skills.

Dr. Leon Jakobovits' doctoral dissertation at McGill University (also in 1962) was an experimental exploration of experimental semantics, and therefore certainly theoretical enough and protected from pragmatic accountabilities. More particularly, his search for linguistic-cognitive correlates led him to take cognitive reactions literally and looked at the issue from the other end of the ~rrel; namely, do known physiological processes cause visible effects in language related behaviors? The answer was always positive, and after some period, the search was abandoned.

It dawned on us both at about the same time that we ought to switch our focus to naturally occuring units of language behavior. Our change of focus away from experimentally motivated units of analysis was considerably quickened upon our encounter with the already on-going work in ethnomethodology, especially, in our case, Harvey Sacks (1966) and Harold Garfinkel (1967). We should also include here as significant influences on us, the writings of Erving Goffman (1974). These three sociologists impressed upon us a methodological concern with the microdescriPtion and cataloguing of language behavior occuring in nablral social

t8.5. 4] the meaning of the daily round; that is, developing theoretical rationales for 8ampling naturally occuring units within specified situational contexts. In other words, we worked on methods for specifying (a) what natural units are, and (b) how to locate them within the stream of the daily round. Thus, categories (a) through (e) in the current version of the Daily_Round Archives (see above, Section ~8. 5.11), constitute our solutions to the sampling problem, as far as it goes in the current version (see Jakobovits and Nahl, 1975-77).

Though we cannot detail the full account here--and we invite the interested sbldent to consult our typed notes that run to over a thousand pages (~ Jakobovits and Nahl, 1975-77)--we ought nevertheless to present the main results of our undertaking. This we do in the next section with is both lengthy and technical, though hopefully, not obscure (available upon request). We invite the interested student and colleague to consult with us on further issues or elaborations relating to our ideas, and we welcome such contacts.

~8. 5. 5] Preliminar~ Findings. We have been fortunate enough to live and work on the Islands of Hawaii which besides being physically splendiferous are socioculturally variagated. We wonder whether Charles Darwin could have formulated his ideas on variability and natural selection had he not had the good fortune of exposure to the natural laboratories of nature in the form of isolated islands in the Atlantic and vast Pacific. Here, on the island of Oahu, we have a natural sociocultural laboratory, and our preliminary findings could not perhaps have occurred somewhere else.

[8. 5. 5.1] Oral and Written Literacy. There is considerable interest today in the issue of non-standard forms of English, in both scientific-educational and community circles. In education and in employment there exists a definite value which assigns various forms of stigma to variability in speech pattern. Thus, intelligence tests and scholastic achievement tests are almost always based on a narrow cultural reference point. For this reason. public school testing for intelligence has been sharply attacked by Blacks and other minority groups as being unfairly culture-specific, i.e., biased in favor of the national prototype of English as visible in the educated daily press and in federal operations. (For a perspective on this issue in Hawaii, see for example, Feldman, et al., 1977. )

Similarly, there exists a natural system of valuation of social signs in any community. Hence it is observable at once when entering a community that the people's practices on the daily round require them to use several distinct speech formats or registers. For instance, the language and speech attitudes we express may vary considerably on the daily round: to members of the family at home, to strangers in public places, to co-workers, in a letter to a company, in one's personal note keeping habits, in reading paperbacks, the newspaper and sections thereof, in our comments to the Self, and many others. That such differences in language pattern exist is now a well accepted axiom in the language disciplines, but there are few definite ideas as to how one might specify and catalogue the significant units. ~ ~_ cultural environment is the principal motive behind the project on the Daily Round Archives.

What constitutes variability in personal behavior ?

What sociocultural forces are responsible in its shaping?

We present samples from the data in categories (b), (d), and (e) by way of mustrating the format of the entries as well as to make a point about the function of variability in speech behavior. (Category TITLES refer to the schema described in Chapter 9. )

INDIVIDUAL A Sample [5. C.i] A#5, My Community of Relationships C. Reporting Joint Activities

(i) Doing Something With (dates, appointments, etc . )

"Last night, I tried to get the old gang together for some fun. I picked them up; we fit in one big car. Then we went riding into town and back. By the time we got back everyone was wasted from smoking dope. It was fun but not the same. Everyone has gone a different direction--different states of mind. "

Sample[5.A.i.c] A#5, MyCommunityofRelationships, A. NoticingObservations,

(i) Visual Sightings, (c) Weather, etc.

"The weather is supposed to be getting drier. It seems the axis of

the world is shifting, making Hawaii warmer and drier and other parts

of the world colder and wetter. "

Sample [4.A.v] A#4, My Standardized Imaginings, A. Interior Dialogue,

(v) Emotionalizing Episodes

"One day, while in kigh school, I arrived home and found my dog

lying on the ground in front of his doghouse. He was dead. This was

the first time I really touched death. It was a cold, lost, and lonely 3 .

feeling. Cold because there was no life in my dog. He was dead.

Lost, because I had lost him forever. Lonely, because a gap had

formed in my heart. I began to remember the old days with my dog.

Now he was gone, and I was left cold, lost, and lonely. "

Sample [3. B.vl A#3, My Daily Round Setting, B. Microdescriptions of Sensory

Observations, (v) Appetite and Cooking

"I decided to bake some chicken for dinner. It took about two hours.

The satisfaction of creating this meal gave me pride in what I was

doing and it made me want to do a good job. It also gave me an ap-

petite to finish the terrific meal I created. "

These four samples contributed by one individual may be compared with the entries

contributed by a second individual, picking from the same categories as above.

INDIVIDUAL B

Sample [5.C.i]

"I have just come from an appointment with my advisor. I just

wanted to ask some routine questions about graduation. She also told

me what to do in the event I decide to come back to graduate school.

We discuss school only for a few minutes and she asks me what my

plans are for the summer. I tell her that I'm going to Europe and she

reacts favorably. She has already been there and tells me what to

see and what to avoid.

Sample [5. A . i . c]

"As I am writing this, it is pouring rain outside. It is 10:30 p. m.,

and it has been raining for eight minutes steadily. I am lying in bed

8miling because I like the rain when I can relax and enjoy it. "

Sample [4. A . v]

"My mother is telling me that she has asked my sister to move out of the house. I am slightly perturbed but I feel nothing else. My mother is ashen-faced and her voice is quivering slightly. She says to me: "I am so disgusted and upset that I just don't care anymore ! ' I tell her that I don't want to hear about it and this upsets her more. The emotions are so intense in the room that I get up and leave. I go up to my own room and turn on the radio. Strangely, the blaring music soothes me and I feel released again. "

Sample [3.B.v]

"I am at home writing a paper for one of my classes. I am constantly being disturbed by the incessant rumblings in my stomach. I have not yet eaten dinner and I am becoming increasingly aware of a gnawing in my stomach that makes it extremely difficult to concentrate on the work at hand. I think about the steak the rest of my family ate for dinner and can feel myself anticipating eating. My mouth waters a little and I go downstairs to get something to eat and quell my hunger pains. I heat up the steak and steam some fresh broccoli to go with it. I pour myself a ~ass of sugar-free 7-Up and begin eating. ~'

These two samples appear on the surface to be standard products of the level of writing of the students of Psychology 222, though this needs of course to be documented. As can be judged, the literacy attained appears standard and adequate, and not unlike what we have experienced with students at the University of ~linois and Florida. At this point we present sample segments from the transcript prepared by the above two individuals. Individual A's transcript runs to 102 talking turns and involves a section of an episode in which the person meets with friends in a game room. Individual B's transcript runs to 104 talking turns and involves a section of a recorded dinner conversation in a restaurant.

INDIVIDUAL A 1. AY: 2. RT: 3. AY: 4. RT: 5. AY:

r T - T~

7. RT:

8. LT:

9. EK:

10. 11. 12. 13.

Come inside. Hey. Hey long time no see. (background) Cough, cough Sit down. Ay, da kind. Where you was ? Where they going? I don't know, they just told me, they told me for come inside here and see whats happening and then go back out there, they just, they just, ~ey just came to pick us up too hea. RT: Oh you came with somebody? EK: Yeah, the van hea. AY: One Van! ! ! (laughing) RT: Humm.

LT: Brand new "77" van. AY: We playing cards. EK: (laughing) No lie. RT: You bought one van? EK: No, my friend, you know Denis, Denis Ho. LT: Ay, Bobo pay me . EK: Dis one?

INDnIDUAL B

2. L:

3. T:

4. L:

5. T:

6. L:

7. 1':

8. L:

9. T:

10. L:

11. T:

12. L:

13. T:

14. L:

15. T:

16. L:

17. T:

18. L:

(space of

19. T:

20. L:

etc.

T: Like when we were at that Waikiki Hotel? U7hat Waikiki Ho. . . Third Floor or... (interrupting) I've never been to the Third Floor. (interrupting) The Point After. . . not the Third Floor but the restaurant on the bottom. Summit House, Summery. . . Oh, Summery ? Summery. God, those people! Tourists, tourists. . . tourists are all like that. We should have brought Dennis . (interrupting) Here? He works! (3. 5 sec. pause) No, I couldn't transcribe anything like that! So salad comes with the meal? We go to the salad bar. Or you can just go to the salad bar for four-fifty. Do they have meats up there ? Yeah, cold cuts. . . very nice. Forget it. (interrupting) Turkey, ham... I want real meat. You're so carnivorous. 13 seconds) That guy can't go out a lot, he's near poverty he told me. Who? Paul? (pause) That's why he calls you up so late, so he has an excuse not to stay out all evening. (laugh)

It is evident from the above samples that the oral literacy patterns are contrastive between individuals A and B, yet their written pattern are quite similar. Thus,

H4 there is an independence between oral and written patterns of literacy--a finding which needs to be documented but which we already know is true for the samples we've inspected. (For support on this, see the data in Feldman, 1977. )

This finding may startle those whose experience with non-standard forms of oral literacy has been in a context where they are attributed to the individual's "cognitive processes. ~' Dr. Gordon's initial educational efforts in teaching ling~listic-cognitive correlates to grade schoolers of minority groups (Cubans, ~lacks) had been motivated by the standard view of a "deficiency" by reference to

Previous portion


A total of people have accessed this page since October 17, 1995.