Analysis on the excerpts

Language is the essential thing that separates human beings from other species. It gives us the possibility to communicate with other individuals, therefore conversation represents an important tool for humans. We can express our opinions, thoughts, desires to others through speech. The excerpts given for analysis are a perfect example of how the participants from a conversation can reduce the social differences that exist between them, at a linguistic level. In the two examples, Speaker A is a male academic and Speaker B a female research student. They have known each other for several years and are good friends. First of all, if we concentrate on the phonetics of the texts, we can observe that, in both cases, we are not confronted with phonetics transcriptions, but it can be noticed that in the second example some consonants are missing, like in the words : orrible (horrible), ise (is he) or there are cases when even syllables are replaced by word stresses, as in : wouldtve (wouldnt have), Charl (Charles). It is also used the word er, which means that the speaker hesitates in speech, in this case being Speaker B who gives this impression of lacking confidence. Secondly, if we take a look at the syntax of the excerpts, we can see the fact that in the first example, the sentences are longer than in the second example. This can mean that in the first example, Speaker B shows in someway his superior position, by using long, explanatory sentences, whereas in the second example, this social distance is erased, short sentences being used in order to create a friendly conversation rather than a formal one between an academic and a student. If we talk about the vocabulary of the texts, there are some differences in what concerns the type of language used in conversations in the first example, the language used is formal, whereas in the second one, we are facing informal language; we can depict a lot of specialized words in the first conversation, but if we analyze the second example from this perspective, we can see that there are no specialized words used in creating the discourse; taking into account the fact that they are good friends, the first example does not show this situation, but the second one looks indeed like a conversation between two friends. From the turn-taking perspective, Speaker A seems to be the protagonist of the first conversation. He expressed opinions on Speaker Bs assumptions on the subject discussed.

Speaker A addresses questions to Speaker B and he even analyses some of her reactions on certain points. From a parallel perspective, the second example offers a totally different view : there isnt a protagonist anymore. Both speakers are equal in expressing their ideas and thoughts. Speaker B has a longer speech in two occasions. In conclusion, if in the first example, the social distance between the participants from the act of conversation is large, in the second example we can observe that Speaker A, mainly, tries to erase this distance by transforming his way of speaking, his language, even his way of acting. The context, the social background, the education is very important in communication, but these elements are not crucial, because communication comes from within, from our inner selves and, sometimes, the social distance between a lawyer and a waitress is annihilated by language. Therefore, we come up to the same conclusion that language is one of the most important element from our existence.

Raluca Batori CDSAM, anul I