So at thanksgiving diner a lot of possible topics are being brought up that everyone is trying to avoid. Person A might be the one bringing everything up. Person B’s response to person A can simply be “Here we go again” meaning that this person always does this every time by bringing up topics they clearly don’t want to talk about. This violates the quality, quantity, and relevance part of the mixims. It is not contributing any truth nor false information. Though it is short and not giving too much info it is not correlating to what was said by answering the question person A would have asked. And relevance as it does not exactly relate to what was asked by person A it was just an input. I do think it follows the be brief part of the manner maxims though. Because you can get any more subtle and brief than a sarcastic under the breath comment. While an example of what A could possibly say could be along the lines of “How is work/school going?” or “Have you gotten vaccinated yet?”. Just some examples that would make sense for person B to respond the way they did.

There’s always that one person (Guest A) who feels the need to bring up a controversial topic every year at Thanksgiving dinner. Most of the times nobody really addresses it because they either don’t want to offend the person, they don’t want to make the situation worse, they simply just don’t want to get involved, etc.  But, if another person (Guest B) wanted to interfere and attempt to indirectly change the topic, they might violate one (or some) of Grice’s maxims of conversation.  Guest B may violate the maxim of relation by saying something like, “Oh wow, this Turkey is really good- you made this yourself?!” to the chef, seeing as how the food that was served is in no way related to the topic at hand.  Guest B may also simultaneously violate the maxim’s of quality and relation by saying something like “I could really go for a dip in the pool! Would anybody care to join me?”.  Considering the time of year, most people have closed their pools because of how cold it is- so I doubt that anyone would be going for a dip in their pool after Thanksgiving dinner.  This would also violate the maxim of relation because it would have nothing to do with the topic that was brought up, comment that was made, etc.  By making statements or asking questions which violate any/all of Grice’s maxims of conversation, Guest B would be indirectly making Guest A aware that the conversation is making them uncomfortable and that it is unwanted.  This would (hopefully) lead Guest A to drop it and move on to another conversation, without having to be explicitly told.

At Thanksgiving dinner, we all prepare ourselves for the one family member to mention something we don’t want to hear about, “How’s that boyfriend of yours” We broke up. “Have you lost weight?!” No, I actually gained some. “How do you feel about this president?” I don’t care I’m not into politics. Amongst all the weird and controversial questions or statements that could be asked and said, a way person (B) could respond to person (A) could be by starting an argument, which no one wants to do on Thanksgiving, or could be to change the subject. For example, this year I’m sure there were many debates, questions, and statements regarding the COVID vaccine. No matter what someone’s opinion is on the vaccine or the topic in general, it could definitely stir up some unwelcoming and uncomfortable conversation. Person (A) is the only vaccinated person sitting at a table of people who do not believe in the vaccine because of religious reasons, “So is everyone going to get vaccinated soon?” Person (B) who isn’t really that religious but lives in a religious household and knows how their parents would react to the question, “Wow this stuffing is amazing!!” Can you pass the corn?” This conversation goes against Grice Maxim’s principles because it violates Relevance. Stuffing and corn have nothing to do with the vaccine, but it was the person’s response to the question to avoid any arguments that made happen. The response of person (B) also goes against Quantity because person (B)’s response did not include an informative contribution, they didn’t even answer the question at all.

While at Thanksgiving dinner if person A were to bring up a controversial topic, person B might violate Grice’s maxim of quantity to indirectly get the message across to  person A that his or her contribution is not welcome. Person B might simply say something like “Anywho…” and go on to change the subject entirely.  This would violate Grice’s maxim of quantity because by leaving out the detailed information that would explain that person A’s contribution is not welcome, and why it’s not welcome (such as it’s either inappropriate or  your views are different,)person B is saying “anywho…” to get the message across that he/she is intentionally changing the topic of conversation.

For my final paper, my topic will be componential analysis. I would like to explore more about feature analysis. The feature analysis should be reviewed to fit all words. The feature analysis doesn’t always work for all words. Certain words can’t be broken down using feature analysis. I could talk about the type of words that can’t use the componential analysis. Also, what’s the difference between the words that make it work. Then talk about the reasons why the feature analysis for those words doesn’t work. For example, the word “child” can be put into the features but, cats can’t. There are many different types of cats. That was one of the examples mentioned in the textbook so, I could think of other words where it doesn’t work. I’m still thinking about what else I could include in my paper. The source I plan on using is the textbook used for this class. I still have not figured out what other sources I will be using. An issue that I have is that I don’t know if this will be enough to write about. I haven’t been able to think of any other issues that I might have.

The topic I’m interested in exploring further is the topic of irony vs. sarcasm. I think that this is something that I never really understood myself so it could be a good experience and even fun, to try and distinguish the two. And to further this topic, I would want to also try and answer the question of is irony a kind of ambiguity. Ambiguity is when a word has more than one interpretation or one that has multiple senses that could be applied in the same context. I want to propose that irony and ambiguity are entailed because the way that we use irony is technically by being ambiguous with our words. The only way I can think to get answers to these questions is by looking at definitions, examples, and so on that can tell me what makes these things different from one another. Is it the intention, the context in which it is used, the word choice, or the formation of a phrase in general? 

When you look up sarcasm you will find most definitions have the word irony in it. If sarcasm is the use of irony, why are there 2 different distinctions? I will want to dissect irony, sarcasm, and ambiguity and see where all three of these things intertwine.

I think for my research I would want to investigate the details and fine print that exists out there about irony, sarcasm, and ambiguity. If I understand these 3 features thoroughly, the boundaries that exist would definitely become more apparent. I think another interesting feature I can include in this paper is a poll from research that’s already been done and maybe even my own poll on whether people know the difference between irony and sarcasm. The only problems I can see coming up might be finding enough research on it. I know that there are many examples of each of these things but to actually have someone break down what makes something ironic and what makes something sarcastic may be difficult to find. This is a difficult distinction that I’m willing to attempt through my research and this paper.

 

For my final paper, I want to focus on synonyms in the Spanish language. First I would explain what a synonym is. Secondly, I would continue by explaining how there are many cultures and Latin countries which many use different words for the same sense, even though everyone is speaking the same language. Although there is sometimes a word that is specific to a country or culture, there is still sometimes a word that is more general and isn’t specific to one country, that everyone will usually know. One of the words that are different but have the same senses are corn, which is generally known as maíz but other cultures and countries call it choclo, elote or jojote. Another is the word drinking straw, which doesn’t have a “general” translation, some may call it absorbente, bombilla, popote, sorbete and many other names. The last word that I can talk about is cake, which the general translation could be referred to as pastel, although some may call it torta or bizcocho. I may also look into more words to research but these are the main ones I can think of as of right now. After introducing all words, I will research which country or culture uses which words, why and if there are times they use the general translation. In addition, I will have a questionnaire asking which translation Spanish speakers are most likely likely to use if they are familiar with all of the other translations, how likely they are to use the other translations, and if they would why would they change their translation.