Paper #1
LIN 317 001
Due October 10


We have been discussing the issues related to linguistic attitudes, cultural presupposition and the ethnography of communication. For this assignment, I would like you to address these issues in more detail. The data for the paper may come from one of two sources, outlined below in 1 and 2.

    1) Data from tv/film: pick a U.S. television show or film and do an analysis of the attitude toward the dialects therein and cultural presuppositions/attitudes reflected therein. You should not limit your discussion to phonology alone, but should also discuss morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, if applicable. Once you have gathered the data from the film, analyze how/why these depictions of dialect conform to/differ from what we have discussed about attitudes toward language and how they illustrate/do not illustrate American cultural presuppositions.

    2) Data from an interview: interview a non-native speaker of English about 1) how Americans react to his/her non-native English dialect and why s/he thinks such reactions occur and; 2) what linguistic misunderstandings have arisen as a result of language interference (from his/her native language) or as a result of his/her use of English. Again, focus not only on phonology, but also morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Once you have gathered the data, analyze how/why these experiences conform to/differ from what we have discussed about attitudes toward language and how they illustrate/do not illustrate American cultural presuppositions.



Score                    Traits Evaluated                            
                        
Data Analysis                            
5    The paper presents a plausible data analysis that goes beyond the commonplace by offering original insights, both in terms of the whole and particular parts of the data.                                            
4    The paper presents a plausible data analysis and may contain one or two original insights but on the whole does not go beyond the common range of interpretations the class has discussed.                            
3    The paper reiterates in general terms a common interpretation of the data set with no original ideas.   2    This paper presents original ideas that weaken the plausibility of the analysis.    
0    The paper does not offer a data analysis.

                    
Strength of Argument                        
5    The paper offers a logical, coherent argument for the data analysis. All assertions are supported and amplified with details from the data or from other sources. The writer pursues an original line of argument in at least one portion of the paper.                                                
4    The paper offers a logical, coherent argument for the data analysis but only partially supports or amplifies the assertions. Or the writer does not pursue an original line of argument.                                    
3    The paper offers an argument that contains some lapses in logic and/or offers only minimal support or amplification of assertions.                    
2    The paper offers an argument that is seriously flawed in logic or that fails to support or amplify most or all assertions. The paper is basically a list with no attempt to support the argument.                            
0    The paper does not present an argument to support the data analysis.

               
Incorporation of Counterarguments                        
5    This paper acknowledges significant counterarguments (alternative interpretations and reasons) and either effectively refutes or successfully     accommodates them into the interpretation being argued.         4    The paper acknowledges several but not all counterarguments and refutes or accommodates some.     3    The paper acknowledges at least one counterargument (perhaps more) but is unsuccessful in the attempt to refute or to accommodate it/them.            
2    The paper mentions at least one counterargument but makes no attempt to refute or accommodate it.   0    The paper ignores all counterarguments.

                   
Relation to the Whole/Significance                        
5    The significance of the data analysis offered (either in relation to language as a whole or to a larger context in which the data are situated) forms an integral part of the argument. The connections are profound, interesting, or complex.        
4    The paper makes clear the significance of the data analysis either in relation to language as a whole or to the larger context in which the data are situated. The connections are plausible.                                    
3    The paper offers some mention of the significance of the data analysis or the significance is somewhat loosely implied. The connections are plausible, but somewhat obvious.                                     2    The paper offers some mention of the significance of the data analysis, but the connections are not plausible.                                
0    The paper makes no attempt to mention significance.

                
Spelling/Grammar/Citations                        
5    This paper has no errors in language, usage, or citations (footnotes/bibliography)                                 4    This paper has one consistent error in language, usage, or citations.            
3    This paper has several errors in language, usage, or citations.            
2    This paper has frequent errors in language, usage, or citations.            
0    This paper is incomprehensible due to errors in language, usage, or citations.

                    
Transcription/Description of Data                        
5    This paper uses proper transcription and/or description of data, i.e. IPA when discussing phonetics or phonology (if you do not know IPA, then you should see me); proper terms when discussing phonetics, phonology, morphology, semantics or syntax.                                    
4    This paper has one consistent error in transcription and/or description of data.    
3    This paper has several errors in transcription and/or description of data.        
2    This paper has frequent errors in transcription and/or description of data.        
0    Proper IPA and/or terminology are not used.