Co-occurrence…. Is It Socially Constructed?

In our book Language the Social Mirror (Chaika, 2008), it talks about the term co-occurrence. In class, we talked about the acronym S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G.. I believe that it can be applied to this term in ways more than one.

The Setting of the example that was used to differentiate the social status was a person asking another person to go out dining. The book revealed many different ways that a person can ask another person to dine with them-which are the Participants. The Event that was going on at the time was for the actual dining to take place. The Act was basically the act of a person asking the other out to dine with them. The Key seemed to be the hard part of the acronym. Although, I came up with the idea that  the key would be to get the other person to say yes to the other person no matter what dialect was used. The Instrumentalities seemed to be even harder because there was nothing there that was directed towards it. The Norm would be that Person A was obviously a male asking Person B which was obviously a woman out on a date which is tied in with the Genre of the situation.

In my opinion, the SPEAKING acronym can be used with anything. It was not difficult to apply this acronym to this term and it was very simple and easy to structure. Because this acronym is well put together, it is an easier way of breaking down terms used in the Chaika Language book. It also showed just how important language is and that it is always subject to change.

Is it true that there is really a restriction on what words can go together and what words can’t? Is it true that every combination of words are that combination because words themselves are socially constructed? These are the questions that I think about when co-occurrence comes to mind. However, I do feel that this term has a connection with the acronym S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G..

Chaika, E. (2008). Language the Social Mirror. Canada: Sherrise Roehr.

Who Will Step In? Who Will Answer?

Most of the time, when someone asks a question and they are not specific as to who they are talking to, the question automatically becomes a general question. Because it is general, anyone can state their opinion or idea based on their own experiences. However, just because everyone can answer, does that mean that everyone should?

In the New York Times newspaper, there is an article with the title, “U.S. Plan to Replace Principals Hits a Snag: Who Will Step In? (Dillon, 2011). According to New York Times, this article is about getting rid of principals that work in schools that are failing. The only problem is there are not enough qualified principals to take over for the other principals. So for now, those principal’s jobs are spared.

The title itself is a direct question. The main question is who is it directed to? We all are clearly aware of who and what it is about, but who is going to answer? The New York Times Newspaper is a United States paper. If the newspaper article is about the United States, then who is the question really directed to? After reading a little bit about it, I noticed that this would be a case of discourse because everyone is worried and concerned about principals losing their jobs.

A direct question is made for a direct answer and usually, that happens in that order. IF a question is general, it is still open for an answer. However, I wonder who is still directed to answer it? Those who are more aware of it? Those who are opinionated? Or those who would just like to answer a question? Is a general question limited to who answers it?

Dillon, S. (2011, February 8). U.S. Plan to Replace Principals Hits a Snag: Who Will Step In? New York Times , CLX No. 55,310, pp. A1, A15.