Analysis of Linguistic Theory in Transpotting (1996)

Analysis of Linguistic Theory in Transpotting (1996) Introduction The main argument of this dissertation is that the language of John Hodges screenplay Trainspotting, even though it appears to contain sub-cultural social contexts, cannot be categorised within the framework of linguistic theory as representing a youth subculture. The verbal conflict formation in the text should be read as reflective of the larger worldview that verbal conflict behaviour is inevitable in all societies, as are the existence of social dialectsand the usage of common slang. 1. Gumperz Term: Speech Community In his 1982 volume Discourse strategies, John Gumperz discusses the concept of a speech community. He defines speech community as a system of organized diversity held together by common norms and aspirations. He also states that the speech community must form the starting point of linguistic analysis. He further states that although members of the same speech community may differ in terms of their beliefs and their behaviours, that this is a normal variation and has been shown to be a systematic regularity of communities. For, the most part, however, members of speech communities generally share norms of evaluation. Gumperz stresses the point that it is not the individual speakers of a language that make up a speech community. He cites the theories of Saussure and others of that time period to support this statement: It was believed that these reflect either momentary preferences, personal idiosyncrasies, or expressive or emotive tendencies, which rely on universal signalling mechani sms and are thus not part of the system of meaningful sounds by which substantive information is conveyed (11-12). According to Gumperz, although the ability to form grammatical statements is common to all speakers of a certain language, the more complex knowledge of contextualization convention varies widely. He also points out that contextualization is not something that can be attained through formal education or reading, but must be learned through face-to-face interactions. Discourse at this level is marked by conventions that reflect prolonged interactive experience by individuals cooperating in institutionalized settings in the pursuit of shared goals in friendship, occupational and similar networks of relationships (209). Language and social identity, a volume published in the same year, was co-authored by Jenny Cook-Gumperz. In this work, he discusses the role of communicative skills in our society, asserting that they have been radically altered. It is absolutely essential for individuals in todays society to be capable of managing or adapting to a variety of diverse communicative situations. In addition, they must be able to interact freely with people who are virtual strangers to them. These abilities are an absolute necessity if one is to acquire a sense of personal control and to establish a sense of order in ones life. The cause for this change, he asserts, is the bureaucratization of public institutions, which have become increasingly pervasive in our day-to-day lives. He sees this as a result of our post-industrial society and states that it exists in both Western and non-Western countries. The skills required to function at this level are far more complex, but must be mastered if one is to function autonomously as a member of a speech community. 2. Hallidays Notion: Antilanguages In Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation oflanguage and meaning, M.A.K. Halliday explains the initial acquisitionof language as part of the development of the child as a socialcreature: Language is the main channel through which the patterns ofliving are transmitted to him, through which he learns to act as amember of a â€Å"society† (9). The child does this, she goes on toexplain, through associations with family, neighbourhood, and varioussocial groups; these comprise the foundation on which the child baseshis or her belief systems and values. The child does not learn these things directly, but ratherindirectly, Halliday explains. It is through the accumulatedexperience of numerous small events, insignificant in themselves, inwhich his behaviour is guided and controlled, and in the course ofwhich he contracts and develops personal relationships of all kinds'(9). The unifying factor here is language; language is the mediumthrough which all of this takes place. She develops her discussion further by introducing the notion of anantisociety which is in direct contrast to society, describing theantisociety as a conscious alternative that can also be viewed as aform of resistance. This resistance can take a number of forms. It canbe passive, in which case it will appear, at least outwardly, to causeno harm. On the other hand, it can be actively hostile to the point ofcausing actual destruction. The antilanguage is the language of the antisociety. It isparallel to the antisociety, which of course generates it. Bothlanguage and its counterpart, antilanguage, share equal linguisticsignificance. According to Halliday, either pair, a society and itslanguage or an antisociety and its (anti) language, is, equally, aninstance of the prevailing sociolinguistic order (164). Halliday describes the antilanguage as a form of resocialization,as a mechanism that creates an alternative reality. In this sense, shedoes not see it as a negative construct, but rather of reconstruction(170). The significant aspect of the language/antilanguage dynamicexists in the distance between the two, and in the tension that iscaused by that distance. The individual may function in either worldand may go back and forth with relative comfort. In this sense, it mayseem that he is living a double existence. Still, it should not be forgotten that both aspects—language andantilanguage—originate from the same place. Because of this commonbackground, there is continuity between them which parallels thatbetween society and antisociety. Not only is there a continuity, thereis also tension. Hence, although the languages may be expressed bymembers of different social strata, they are both parts of the samesocial system. In other words, the antisociety is, in terms ofLà ©vi-Strausss distinction between metaphor and metonymy, metonymic tosociety—it is an extension of it, within the social system (Halliday175). Thus, basically, an antilanguage is just another language. However,the world it exists in is a counter-reality, which in itself hascertain implications: It implies preoccupation with the definition anddefence of identity through the ritual functioning of the socialhierarchy. It implies a special conception of information and ofknowledge (172). In addition, there will be a certain amount of secrecy in anantilanguage; this is inherent in its nature. The reality in which itfunctions is a secret reality. Generally, the members of this realitydo have secrets. Often these secrets may have something of an illegalassociation to them. It is just as likely, however, that the secretsare not illegal, but merely lacking in respectability and socialsanction. They may be the secrets of a segment of the population whichexists at least partly in its fringes, although its members may notwant this known in the mainstream. The antisociety is, then, a metaphorfor the society, and it joins society at the level of the social system. The perspective of the antilanguage is generally that of adistinctly different view of the world, one which is thereforepotentially threatening, if it does not coincide with ones own'(Halliday 179). The purpose of the antilanguage is primarily fordisplay as its speakers struggle to maintain their counter-realitywhile existing within the confines of the world. An antilanguage, according to Halliday, brings into sharp reliefthe role of language as a realization of the power structure ofsociety (181). The antilanguages of countercultures, such as prisonsand criminal networks, are often full are defined against the socialstructure. Essentially, they are defined by what they are not. This isnot unlike the jargon or nomenclature of certain highly-specialisedprofessions, which may in some sense be seen as having a similar—thoughacceptable by society—counter-reality. Members of mainstream society who are speakers solely of standarddialect may have negative reactions to antilanguage. However, they willusually express this indirectly. For example, they may state that theydont like the vowels as they are pronounced by the speakers of theantilanguage, when in essence what they are saying is that they dontlike the values held by the speakers of the antilanguage. 3. Labovs Finding: The Concept of Sounding Labov and his colleagues (Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and JohnLewis) studied the vernacular of young American black males in theinner city areas of New York. The youths ranged in age from eight to 19years old, and they spoke a relatively uniform grammar, the language ofstreet culture. Labov and his team used a variety of methods to gather their data,the most important of which was long-term participant-observation withpeer groups (via). They collected tape-recorded conversations that tookplace on school buses, field trips, and parties—essentially, any typeof gathering where the youths got together and socialized. They thencarefully analyzed the data they collected, noting the patterns theyfound in speech events. Two examples of these exchanges are below. A: Eat shit. B: Hop on the spoon. A. Move over. B. I cant, your mothers already there. The following exchange is between two adolescents, John and Willie, with an observer (Rel) looking on: John: Who father wear raggedy drawers? Willie: Yeh the ones with so many holes in them when-a-you walk they whistle? Rel: Oh . . . shi-it! When you walk they whistle! Oh shit! (326) Given the insults against the person, his family, his poverty, aperson who is not a member of a given culture might expect thesituation to escalate into physical conflict. However, Labov points out that these are actually ritual insults. Herefers to this as sounding, which he describes as a complex patternof verbal conflict. Sounding has also been called playing the dozensor signifying. It consists of a dialogue that is usually performedfor an audience of observers who are usually peers. The dialogue itselfconsists of ritual insults, most of which are directed towards theother speakers mother, self, or housing situation. The speakers tradethese sounds back and forth as though in competition, and theaudience looks on. Occasionally an audience member will comment, approve, ordisapprove of the statements of one or both speakers. Labov points outthat the audience is an essential ingredient to this process: It istrue that one person can sound against another without a third personbeing present, but the presupposition that this is public behavior caneasily be heard in the verbal style. The presence of an audience has a definite impact on the speechevent. The sounds are no longer spoken in a direct, face-to-faceconversational mode when others are present. The speakers voices tendto be raised and they become more projected, suggesting full awarenessthat the audience is there. In the second exchange above, Rel makes acomment on Willies insult, praising it. In a sounding session, Labovpoints out, everything is public—nothing significant happens withoutdrawing comment. The rules and patterning of this particular speechevent are therefore open for our inspection (327). In fact, theexistence of an audience is considered a defining factor, according toLabov. A primary difference between sounding and other speech events isthat most sounds are evaluated overtly and immediately by theaudience (325). By closely analyzing the discourse of this segment of thepopulation, Labov was able to isolate certain characteristics and todiscern patterns in the structure of this ritua l exchange of insults.After a while, the fundamental difference that divides ritual insultsand personal insults became clear. For example, there was a very clearopposition between an insult that is made during this ritualperformance and an actual, personal insult. The appropriate responsesare quite different: a personal insult is answered by a denial, excuse,or mitigation, whereas a sound or ritual insult is answered by longersequences (335). The ritual insults must be exaggerated to thepoint of being ridiculous and clearly untrue. This is clear to both thespeakers and to the audience that is following the exchange. If theinsults violate this rule—for example, one speaker makes a comment thatis both derogatory and which is known to be accurate—the ritual mayturn into conflict. The speech event we call sounding is not isolated from other formsof verbal interaction: it can merge with them or become transformedinto a series of personal insults, asserts Labov (330). He points outthat when ritual insult passes over into a different level ofdiscourse, that of interpersonal conflict, the difference between thetwo is unmistakably clear. Audience reaction is a key tool in assessing sounds. Laughter isthe primary mark of affirmation. A really successful sound will beevaluated by overt commentsAnother, even more forceful mode ofapproving sounds is t repeat the striking part of the sound oneself'(325). Negative reactions to sounds happen with a similar frequency andare equally overt. At the end of any sounding contest, all members,speakers and audience alike, are keenly aware of the who has come outahead. 4-a. Goffmans Notion: Face in Politeness Goffman writes that the ritual order seems to be organizedbasically on accommodative lines (109). These lines allow individualsto build and maintain illusions about themselves, and are not governedby laws or justice. Rather, Goffman asserts, the main principle of theritual order is not justice but face (110). Hence, the governingprinciple is what allows individuals to save face. Individuals whocross the line do not suffer retribution, but rather receive what isnecessary to bolster the illusion of self to which they are committed. The ways in which an individuals may insulate themselves aremyriad. Some of them include half-truths, illusions, andrationalizations. Therefore, not only are they able to convincethemselves of the beliefs necessary to his continued sense of self,they are further bolstered by the support of those close to them. Thusthey continue to believe in the illusion of self, and this illusion isfurther maintained and reinforced by the members of their immediate,intimate circle (109). 4-b. Does face exist in the discourse when verbal conflict occurs? An incidence of verbal conflict requires the individual uponwhom the offense has been committed to react in some way. The type ofreaction will depend on the level of offense. One mechanism for savingface is avoidance. That is, if a person is offended by anotherindividual, but can let the incident go without losing too much face,then it is likely that the offended person will let the situation go.He or she may rationalize this by telling themselves that they willdeal with the offender at some point in the future, perhaps when thecircumstances are optimal—although it is just as likely that when thispoint in time presents itself, no action will be taken. If the offense committed against the person is great, an actionmust be taken by the offended person. They may decide to withdraw fromthe situation and may avoid future encounters with individuals whobreak the ritual code. Alternately, they may arrange to have theoffending person removed, thus ensuring that there will be no furthercommunication necessary with this individual. Societies must mobilize their members as self-regulatingparticipants in social encounters Goffman asserts. Ritual is one wayof doing this. Members of society are taught the importance of face,and that they should value such qualities as pride, honor, dignity, andpoise (110). Maintaining face then is a one way in which individuals protectthemselves and maintain their illusions of who they are and where theystand in the social hierarchy. This does not mean that face is realor authentic: Universal human nature is not a very human thing,asserts Goffman. By acquiring it, the person becomes a kind ofconstruct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moralrules that are impressed upon him from without (110). This constructis necessary for the individuals sense of self and helps him tomaintain the ritual equilibrium that is essential for his survival. 5. Brown and Levinson and the politeness phenomena Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson derive their definition offace from Goffman. They also include the English folk term, whichincludes the concept of being embarrassed or humiliated—or, simply put,losing face. They explain this further: Thus face is something thatis emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced,and must be constantly attended to in interaction (Brown and Levinson61). Brown and Levinson also point out that one individuals sense offace is dependent upon the continued maintenance of everyone elsessense of face. A threat to one individuals face, then, becomes athreat to all. Individuals in the community soon learn that it is intheir best interest to defend not only their own faces, but those ofthe other members of the community as well. Brown and Levinson discuss two kinds of linguistic politeness: positive politeness and negative politeness. Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of â€Å"face†which consists of two specific kinds of desires(â€Å"face-wants†) attributed by interactants to one another: thedesire to be unimpeded in ones actions (negative face), and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face)(13). Brown and Levinson offer fifteen strategies that speakers use to establish positive politeness: [H= addressee] 1. notice, attend to Hs interests, wants, needs, goods 2. exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with H 3. intensify interest to H 4. use in-group identity markers -address forms -use of in-group language or dialect -use of jargon or slang -contraction and ellipsis 5. seek agreement 6. avoid disagreement 7. presuppose/raise/assert common ground–gossip, small talk 8. joke 9. assert or presuppose Ss knowledge of and concern for Hs wants 10. offer, promise 11. be optimistic 12. include both S H in the activity, using we 13. give (or ask for reasons) 14. assume or assert reciprocity 15. give gifts–goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation If positive politeness is defined as redress directed to theaddressees positive face, then negative politeness is redressiveaction addressed to the addressees negative face: his want to have hisfreedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (129).Strategies used by speakers in the process of establishing negativeface include: 1. be conventionally indirect–opposing tensions, indirect speech acts 2. question, hedge 3. be pessimistic 4. minimize the imposition 5. give deference 6. apologize 7. impersonalize S H 8. state the FTA [face-threatening act] as a general rules 9. nominalize 10. go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H Brown and Levinson have a third category for speech actions. Thisone is off record. A communicative act is done off record if it isdoe in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clearcommunicative intention to the act (211). 1. give hints 2. give assocation clues 3. presuppose 4. understate 5. overstate 6. use tautologies 7. use contradictions 8. be ironic 9. use metaphors 10. use rhetorical questions 11. be ambiguous 12. be vague 13. over-generalize 14. displace H 15. be incomplete, use ellipsis Off record politeness is a sort of hybrid strategy that falls in between the two and is difficult, if not impossible to definitively categorize (Brown and Levinson, 230). 6a. Grimshaws concept of conflict talk In the introduction to his 1990 volume Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, AllenGrimshaw writes: Conflict talk is at the same time so complex a phenomenon andone so deeply implicated in every dimension of human sociallife that it would be possible to identify dozens of reasonswhy it should be a focus of systematic inquiry; by thesame token one would be left wondering why its study hasbeen so neglected (3). Grimshaw points out that conflicts may have as their focus a numberof subjects, including beliefs, objects (things), persons, groups, orinstitutions (294). Interestingly, he asserts that as long as conflicttalk is sustained and the participants do not withdraw, conflicts need not increase in hostility. The increase in hostilityseems to occur only with an increased sense of intensity on both sides 6b. Goodwin and Goodwin: interstitial argument In their essay Interstitial argument, Charles Goodwin andMarjorie Harness Goodwin present the findings of their researchregarding verbal conflict. During the course of their research theywere able to closely study the relationship between participants andtheir local environment. One thing they found is that despite thedisruptive behavior that accompanies an argument, the participants payextremely close attention to the details surrounding them. During theargument, what goes on is actually a process of very intricatecoordination between the parties who are opposing each other (85). For a year and a half M.H. Goodwin audiotaped a group of urbanblack children as they played together in the street. This was onesegment of a larger project in which a range of speech activities werebeing studies. These activities included gossip, arguments, stories,and directives, and similar activities. Specifically, four childrenwere audiotaped during oppositional exchanges, and these exchanges werethen transcribed and analyzed. One of the issues at hand was aslingshot battle. All exchanges, from the planning stages to theselection of teams to the preparation of weapons, were studied inmeticulous detail. From these data Goodwin examined content shift andcontext within argument, multi-party argument, and piggybacking, oraffiliation in argument. Analysing their findings, the Goodwins discovered that by followingthe sequence of utterances, it was clear that the four individualsinvolved in the exchange did not have equal positions (107). It seemedclear that each side had a primary spokesman, followed by a secondindividual who followed the behavior of the primary spokesman. This ledGoodwin and Goodwin to conclude that the structures utilised in theprocess of negotiating opposition also provide resources for theparticipants, enabling them to duplicate types of social organization.Thus, the process of arguing essentially gives the participants resources for reproducing a life that is greater than that of the argument itself (113). Finally, Goodwin and Goodwin write that it has been argued that thetalk people produce during their dealings with each other is oftenconsidered to be too disorderly to be properly organized and studied.In response to this, they write that in analysing the data from thisstudy they found anything but disorder. The participants themselves,within the space of a very few turns, produce a range of systematicpermutations on a basic structure with a precision that would tax theingenuity of even the most inventive experimental design to replicate'(114). 6c. Schiffrin: argument: the role of opinions and stories Deborah Schiffrin asserts that everyday forms of talk are guidedby norms of co-operation and competition. Even argument, a form of talkwhich might seem to be the paradigm example of conflict talk, can be aco-operative way of speaking as well as (or instead of) a competitiveway of speaking (241). Schriffin uses Goffmans concepts of footing and frame asadditional links. Footing and frames are very similar to eachother. Schriffin explains the frame as the definition of thesituation, and the footing as the sort of alignments taken up byparticipation (242). She then goes on to explore opinions and stories. With regard toopinions, she admits that it is not always possible to find linguisticfeatures which mark a declarative statement as the presentation of an opinion, and that because of this,one needs to look elsewhere, and she presents her criteria fordiscerning what an opinion actually consists of, concluding thatopinions are unverifiable, internal, subjective depictions of anexternal worldthe facts presented by the author cannot remainundisputed, but the principals stance toward that proposition cannotbe/ disputed 248-9). This, she explains, also gives opinions aparadoxical status in argument, such that they can either initiate orend an argument (249). She then discusses the role of stories, breaking them down into: †¢ selective interpretation †¢ deictic (time) shifts †¢ evaluation †¢ contextualization First of all, she asserts, one must consider that theinterpretation of stories is highly selective. Individuals will choosecertain stories and interpret them in a way that justifies certainbehaviors and actions. Second, there are deictic, or time shifts, to beconsidered. For example, frequently a speaker must re-orient him orherself back to the actual time of the story, to a time when they mighthave had less knowledge or information about the story. The thirdaspect of stories that Schiffrin finds significant are the evaluativedevices used by the storyteller. These devices can be phonological,grammatical, or textual in nature. Finally, she asserts, stories arepresented as frames within certain events are explained,contextualizing them. Text Analysis on Verbal Conflict, using examples from the screenplay of Trainspotting 1. Overview. Trainspotting is a coming-of-age story in story of a group ofheroin-addicted young people from Edinburgh. It is a very vividdepiction of junkie life as well as a cross-section of life in the 90s.The title of the book, Trainspotting, is also a term used in theBritish Isles for people who, as a hobby, keep track of local trainschedules with excessive vigilance. Essentially, the term is synonymouswith wasting time, making this activity a sort of metaphor for heroinaddiction. Both activities are essentially pointless and futile. Drugs are a central focus of the story, and in particular (but notexclusively) heroin. This is very clear from the language that is used.This can be noted from the frequency of the occurrence of terms whichrelate to heroin. There are numerous references to the sale,acquisition, preparation, injection, and withdrawal of heroin. Thedrug-related words which appear with highest frequency include hit,junk, shot, and inject, each of which appear more than ten times.Other commonly used drug words include of course the drugitself—heroin—along with its many variations, such as smack and skag. However, despite the omnipresence of drug and drug-relatedactivities, the story does not set out to glorify heroin use; neitherdoes it condemn or moralize use of the drug. It does, however, give aclear depiction of the bleak environment this group of young peoplemust survive in. The area is working-class. References are made to DSSchecks and Giro, which are terms associated with the life of povertyand struggle. This dismal backdrop, and the fact that they have littlehope of physical escape, makes their wreckless behaviour a bit moreunderstandable. Their addictions seem to be the most reliable, if notthe only, escape. Trainspotting is very definitely a movie about youth culture. Itshows an intricate understanding of the issues and influences uponyouth at that period in time, and it realistically reflects thecultural experiences had by young people. Trainspotting appeals to acult-prone youth because it contains the elements that comprisefoundations of subculture in British culture. Alt hough other worksappealed to the youth culture of that period, Trainspotting enjoyed apopularity that exceeded most of them. This may have been due to itsauthenticity in replicating the youth culture experience. When it first premiered (and even now), the graphic detail ofits language and content was found to be rather shocking by some.However, it resonated very strongly with anyone familiar with drugculture. It reflects, sometimes quite graphically, the underbelly ofEdinburgh in the 1980s, and focuses, as mentioned earlier, mainly onone group of heroin addicts, as well as their friends and families.Their experiences as they struggle with very real issues that many canidentify with: life, work, family, death, the struggle to survive.Other issues—ones that may not have been part of mainstream culture—arepresented as well: AIDS, heroin overdose, heroin withdrawal, and raves,among others. The use of dialect is very powerful in Trainspotting. Inaddition, the social, political, and economic views expressed by thecharacters would have mirrored the views of societys fringemembers—specifically members of the youth and/or drug cultures. Renton and his mates do not rebel against society, but they doattempt to transcend in their destructive ways. Renton often parodiesfamous Thatcher quotes through his â€Å"Choose life† rants and frequentcomments regarding the emptiness of society, as demonstrated in thefollowing examples from the screenplay: †¢ Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family.Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compactdisc players, and electrical tin openers. †¢ Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choosefixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose yourfriends. †¢ Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suiton hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY andwondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting onthat couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffingfucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the endof it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than anembarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned toreplace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life. †¢ I chose not to choose life. I chose something else. And thereasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when youve gotheroin? The lifestyle portrayed in Trainspotting has been described asrepresenting a detached subculture of British youth. However, thereis no evidence in the screenplay to support this assertion. The youngcharacters in this story simply attempt to survive in the largerenvironment by adapting in whatever ways they can, primarily throughmusic and through drugs. They do not attempt to change the status quo,nor are they champions of social reform. They simply react to the bleaksocial conditions that they were born into. Unable to physically escape their environment, they find release in music, drugs, alcohol, and sex. Renton is a prime example of this. He is not proactive, he issimply a survivor. He assesses situations with the manipulative eye ofan addict, and he reacts accordingly, taking advantage when he sees theopportunity. He and his contemporaries are merely representative ofyouth who are struggling for a sense of identity. Their mindset isambiguous; they react to outside societal pressures by employing theirchosen means. But they cannot be considered as a youth subculture basedon their language that has been described in the previous section. Language T Analysis of Linguistic Theory in Transpotting (1996) Analysis of Linguistic Theory in Transpotting (1996) Introduction The main argument of this dissertation is that the language of John Hodges screenplay Trainspotting, even though it appears to contain sub-cultural social contexts, cannot be categorised within the framework of linguistic theory as representing a youth subculture. The verbal conflict formation in the text should be read as reflective of the larger worldview that verbal conflict behaviour is inevitable in all societies, as are the existence of social dialectsand the usage of common slang. 1. Gumperz Term: Speech Community In his 1982 volume Discourse strategies, John Gumperz discusses the concept of a speech community. He defines speech community as a system of organized diversity held together by common norms and aspirations. He also states that the speech community must form the starting point of linguistic analysis. He further states that although members of the same speech community may differ in terms of their beliefs and their behaviours, that this is a normal variation and has been shown to be a systematic regularity of communities. For, the most part, however, members of speech communities generally share norms of evaluation. Gumperz stresses the point that it is not the individual speakers of a language that make up a speech community. He cites the theories of Saussure and others of that time period to support this statement: It was believed that these reflect either momentary preferences, personal idiosyncrasies, or expressive or emotive tendencies, which rely on universal signalling mechani sms and are thus not part of the system of meaningful sounds by which substantive information is conveyed (11-12). According to Gumperz, although the ability to form grammatical statements is common to all speakers of a certain language, the more complex knowledge of contextualization convention varies widely. He also points out that contextualization is not something that can be attained through formal education or reading, but must be learned through face-to-face interactions. Discourse at this level is marked by conventions that reflect prolonged interactive experience by individuals cooperating in institutionalized settings in the pursuit of shared goals in friendship, occupational and similar networks of relationships (209). Language and social identity, a volume published in the same year, was co-authored by Jenny Cook-Gumperz. In this work, he discusses the role of communicative skills in our society, asserting that they have been radically altered. It is absolutely essential for individuals in todays society to be capable of managing or adapting to a variety of diverse communicative situations. In addition, they must be able to interact freely with people who are virtual strangers to them. These abilities are an absolute necessity if one is to acquire a sense of personal control and to establish a sense of order in ones life. The cause for this change, he asserts, is the bureaucratization of public institutions, which have become increasingly pervasive in our day-to-day lives. He sees this as a result of our post-industrial society and states that it exists in both Western and non-Western countries. The skills required to function at this level are far more complex, but must be mastered if one is to function autonomously as a member of a speech community. 2. Hallidays Notion: Antilanguages In Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation oflanguage and meaning, M.A.K. Halliday explains the initial acquisitionof language as part of the development of the child as a socialcreature: Language is the main channel through which the patterns ofliving are transmitted to him, through which he learns to act as amember of a â€Å"society† (9). The child does this, she goes on toexplain, through associations with family, neighbourhood, and varioussocial groups; these comprise the foundation on which the child baseshis or her belief systems and values. The child does not learn these things directly, but ratherindirectly, Halliday explains. It is through the accumulatedexperience of numerous small events, insignificant in themselves, inwhich his behaviour is guided and controlled, and in the course ofwhich he contracts and develops personal relationships of all kinds'(9). The unifying factor here is language; language is the mediumthrough which all of this takes place. She develops her discussion further by introducing the notion of anantisociety which is in direct contrast to society, describing theantisociety as a conscious alternative that can also be viewed as aform of resistance. This resistance can take a number of forms. It canbe passive, in which case it will appear, at least outwardly, to causeno harm. On the other hand, it can be actively hostile to the point ofcausing actual destruction. The antilanguage is the language of the antisociety. It isparallel to the antisociety, which of course generates it. Bothlanguage and its counterpart, antilanguage, share equal linguisticsignificance. According to Halliday, either pair, a society and itslanguage or an antisociety and its (anti) language, is, equally, aninstance of the prevailing sociolinguistic order (164). Halliday describes the antilanguage as a form of resocialization,as a mechanism that creates an alternative reality. In this sense, shedoes not see it as a negative construct, but rather of reconstruction(170). The significant aspect of the language/antilanguage dynamicexists in the distance between the two, and in the tension that iscaused by that distance. The individual may function in either worldand may go back and forth with relative comfort. In this sense, it mayseem that he is living a double existence. Still, it should not be forgotten that both aspects—language andantilanguage—originate from the same place. Because of this commonbackground, there is continuity between them which parallels thatbetween society and antisociety. Not only is there a continuity, thereis also tension. Hence, although the languages may be expressed bymembers of different social strata, they are both parts of the samesocial system. In other words, the antisociety is, in terms ofLà ©vi-Strausss distinction between metaphor and metonymy, metonymic tosociety—it is an extension of it, within the social system (Halliday175). Thus, basically, an antilanguage is just another language. However,the world it exists in is a counter-reality, which in itself hascertain implications: It implies preoccupation with the definition anddefence of identity through the ritual functioning of the socialhierarchy. It implies a special conception of information and ofknowledge (172). In addition, there will be a certain amount of secrecy in anantilanguage; this is inherent in its nature. The reality in which itfunctions is a secret reality. Generally, the members of this realitydo have secrets. Often these secrets may have something of an illegalassociation to them. It is just as likely, however, that the secretsare not illegal, but merely lacking in respectability and socialsanction. They may be the secrets of a segment of the population whichexists at least partly in its fringes, although its members may notwant this known in the mainstream. The antisociety is, then, a metaphorfor the society, and it joins society at the level of the social system. The perspective of the antilanguage is generally that of adistinctly different view of the world, one which is thereforepotentially threatening, if it does not coincide with ones own'(Halliday 179). The purpose of the antilanguage is primarily fordisplay as its speakers struggle to maintain their counter-realitywhile existing within the confines of the world. An antilanguage, according to Halliday, brings into sharp reliefthe role of language as a realization of the power structure ofsociety (181). The antilanguages of countercultures, such as prisonsand criminal networks, are often full are defined against the socialstructure. Essentially, they are defined by what they are not. This isnot unlike the jargon or nomenclature of certain highly-specialisedprofessions, which may in some sense be seen as having a similar—thoughacceptable by society—counter-reality. Members of mainstream society who are speakers solely of standarddialect may have negative reactions to antilanguage. However, they willusually express this indirectly. For example, they may state that theydont like the vowels as they are pronounced by the speakers of theantilanguage, when in essence what they are saying is that they dontlike the values held by the speakers of the antilanguage. 3. Labovs Finding: The Concept of Sounding Labov and his colleagues (Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and JohnLewis) studied the vernacular of young American black males in theinner city areas of New York. The youths ranged in age from eight to 19years old, and they spoke a relatively uniform grammar, the language ofstreet culture. Labov and his team used a variety of methods to gather their data,the most important of which was long-term participant-observation withpeer groups (via). They collected tape-recorded conversations that tookplace on school buses, field trips, and parties—essentially, any typeof gathering where the youths got together and socialized. They thencarefully analyzed the data they collected, noting the patterns theyfound in speech events. Two examples of these exchanges are below. A: Eat shit. B: Hop on the spoon. A. Move over. B. I cant, your mothers already there. The following exchange is between two adolescents, John and Willie, with an observer (Rel) looking on: John: Who father wear raggedy drawers? Willie: Yeh the ones with so many holes in them when-a-you walk they whistle? Rel: Oh . . . shi-it! When you walk they whistle! Oh shit! (326) Given the insults against the person, his family, his poverty, aperson who is not a member of a given culture might expect thesituation to escalate into physical conflict. However, Labov points out that these are actually ritual insults. Herefers to this as sounding, which he describes as a complex patternof verbal conflict. Sounding has also been called playing the dozensor signifying. It consists of a dialogue that is usually performedfor an audience of observers who are usually peers. The dialogue itselfconsists of ritual insults, most of which are directed towards theother speakers mother, self, or housing situation. The speakers tradethese sounds back and forth as though in competition, and theaudience looks on. Occasionally an audience member will comment, approve, ordisapprove of the statements of one or both speakers. Labov points outthat the audience is an essential ingredient to this process: It istrue that one person can sound against another without a third personbeing present, but the presupposition that this is public behavior caneasily be heard in the verbal style. The presence of an audience has a definite impact on the speechevent. The sounds are no longer spoken in a direct, face-to-faceconversational mode when others are present. The speakers voices tendto be raised and they become more projected, suggesting full awarenessthat the audience is there. In the second exchange above, Rel makes acomment on Willies insult, praising it. In a sounding session, Labovpoints out, everything is public—nothing significant happens withoutdrawing comment. The rules and patterning of this particular speechevent are therefore open for our inspection (327). In fact, theexistence of an audience is considered a defining factor, according toLabov. A primary difference between sounding and other speech events isthat most sounds are evaluated overtly and immediately by theaudience (325). By closely analyzing the discourse of this segment of thepopulation, Labov was able to isolate certain characteristics and todiscern patterns in the structure of this ritua l exchange of insults.After a while, the fundamental difference that divides ritual insultsand personal insults became clear. For example, there was a very clearopposition between an insult that is made during this ritualperformance and an actual, personal insult. The appropriate responsesare quite different: a personal insult is answered by a denial, excuse,or mitigation, whereas a sound or ritual insult is answered by longersequences (335). The ritual insults must be exaggerated to thepoint of being ridiculous and clearly untrue. This is clear to both thespeakers and to the audience that is following the exchange. If theinsults violate this rule—for example, one speaker makes a comment thatis both derogatory and which is known to be accurate—the ritual mayturn into conflict. The speech event we call sounding is not isolated from other formsof verbal interaction: it can merge with them or become transformedinto a series of personal insults, asserts Labov (330). He points outthat when ritual insult passes over into a different level ofdiscourse, that of interpersonal conflict, the difference between thetwo is unmistakably clear. Audience reaction is a key tool in assessing sounds. Laughter isthe primary mark of affirmation. A really successful sound will beevaluated by overt commentsAnother, even more forceful mode ofapproving sounds is t repeat the striking part of the sound oneself'(325). Negative reactions to sounds happen with a similar frequency andare equally overt. At the end of any sounding contest, all members,speakers and audience alike, are keenly aware of the who has come outahead. 4-a. Goffmans Notion: Face in Politeness Goffman writes that the ritual order seems to be organizedbasically on accommodative lines (109). These lines allow individualsto build and maintain illusions about themselves, and are not governedby laws or justice. Rather, Goffman asserts, the main principle of theritual order is not justice but face (110). Hence, the governingprinciple is what allows individuals to save face. Individuals whocross the line do not suffer retribution, but rather receive what isnecessary to bolster the illusion of self to which they are committed. The ways in which an individuals may insulate themselves aremyriad. Some of them include half-truths, illusions, andrationalizations. Therefore, not only are they able to convincethemselves of the beliefs necessary to his continued sense of self,they are further bolstered by the support of those close to them. Thusthey continue to believe in the illusion of self, and this illusion isfurther maintained and reinforced by the members of their immediate,intimate circle (109). 4-b. Does face exist in the discourse when verbal conflict occurs? An incidence of verbal conflict requires the individual uponwhom the offense has been committed to react in some way. The type ofreaction will depend on the level of offense. One mechanism for savingface is avoidance. That is, if a person is offended by anotherindividual, but can let the incident go without losing too much face,then it is likely that the offended person will let the situation go.He or she may rationalize this by telling themselves that they willdeal with the offender at some point in the future, perhaps when thecircumstances are optimal—although it is just as likely that when thispoint in time presents itself, no action will be taken. If the offense committed against the person is great, an actionmust be taken by the offended person. They may decide to withdraw fromthe situation and may avoid future encounters with individuals whobreak the ritual code. Alternately, they may arrange to have theoffending person removed, thus ensuring that there will be no furthercommunication necessary with this individual. Societies must mobilize their members as self-regulatingparticipants in social encounters Goffman asserts. Ritual is one wayof doing this. Members of society are taught the importance of face,and that they should value such qualities as pride, honor, dignity, andpoise (110). Maintaining face then is a one way in which individuals protectthemselves and maintain their illusions of who they are and where theystand in the social hierarchy. This does not mean that face is realor authentic: Universal human nature is not a very human thing,asserts Goffman. By acquiring it, the person becomes a kind ofconstruct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moralrules that are impressed upon him from without (110). This constructis necessary for the individuals sense of self and helps him tomaintain the ritual equilibrium that is essential for his survival. 5. Brown and Levinson and the politeness phenomena Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson derive their definition offace from Goffman. They also include the English folk term, whichincludes the concept of being embarrassed or humiliated—or, simply put,losing face. They explain this further: Thus face is something thatis emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced,and must be constantly attended to in interaction (Brown and Levinson61). Brown and Levinson also point out that one individuals sense offace is dependent upon the continued maintenance of everyone elsessense of face. A threat to one individuals face, then, becomes athreat to all. Individuals in the community soon learn that it is intheir best interest to defend not only their own faces, but those ofthe other members of the community as well. Brown and Levinson discuss two kinds of linguistic politeness: positive politeness and negative politeness. Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of â€Å"face†which consists of two specific kinds of desires(â€Å"face-wants†) attributed by interactants to one another: thedesire to be unimpeded in ones actions (negative face), and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face)(13). Brown and Levinson offer fifteen strategies that speakers use to establish positive politeness: [H= addressee] 1. notice, attend to Hs interests, wants, needs, goods 2. exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with H 3. intensify interest to H 4. use in-group identity markers -address forms -use of in-group language or dialect -use of jargon or slang -contraction and ellipsis 5. seek agreement 6. avoid disagreement 7. presuppose/raise/assert common ground–gossip, small talk 8. joke 9. assert or presuppose Ss knowledge of and concern for Hs wants 10. offer, promise 11. be optimistic 12. include both S H in the activity, using we 13. give (or ask for reasons) 14. assume or assert reciprocity 15. give gifts–goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation If positive politeness is defined as redress directed to theaddressees positive face, then negative politeness is redressiveaction addressed to the addressees negative face: his want to have hisfreedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (129).Strategies used by speakers in the process of establishing negativeface include: 1. be conventionally indirect–opposing tensions, indirect speech acts 2. question, hedge 3. be pessimistic 4. minimize the imposition 5. give deference 6. apologize 7. impersonalize S H 8. state the FTA [face-threatening act] as a general rules 9. nominalize 10. go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H Brown and Levinson have a third category for speech actions. Thisone is off record. A communicative act is done off record if it isdoe in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clearcommunicative intention to the act (211). 1. give hints 2. give assocation clues 3. presuppose 4. understate 5. overstate 6. use tautologies 7. use contradictions 8. be ironic 9. use metaphors 10. use rhetorical questions 11. be ambiguous 12. be vague 13. over-generalize 14. displace H 15. be incomplete, use ellipsis Off record politeness is a sort of hybrid strategy that falls in between the two and is difficult, if not impossible to definitively categorize (Brown and Levinson, 230). 6a. Grimshaws concept of conflict talk In the introduction to his 1990 volume Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, AllenGrimshaw writes: Conflict talk is at the same time so complex a phenomenon andone so deeply implicated in every dimension of human sociallife that it would be possible to identify dozens of reasonswhy it should be a focus of systematic inquiry; by thesame token one would be left wondering why its study hasbeen so neglected (3). Grimshaw points out that conflicts may have as their focus a numberof subjects, including beliefs, objects (things), persons, groups, orinstitutions (294). Interestingly, he asserts that as long as conflicttalk is sustained and the participants do not withdraw, conflicts need not increase in hostility. The increase in hostilityseems to occur only with an increased sense of intensity on both sides 6b. Goodwin and Goodwin: interstitial argument In their essay Interstitial argument, Charles Goodwin andMarjorie Harness Goodwin present the findings of their researchregarding verbal conflict. During the course of their research theywere able to closely study the relationship between participants andtheir local environment. One thing they found is that despite thedisruptive behavior that accompanies an argument, the participants payextremely close attention to the details surrounding them. During theargument, what goes on is actually a process of very intricatecoordination between the parties who are opposing each other (85). For a year and a half M.H. Goodwin audiotaped a group of urbanblack children as they played together in the street. This was onesegment of a larger project in which a range of speech activities werebeing studies. These activities included gossip, arguments, stories,and directives, and similar activities. Specifically, four childrenwere audiotaped during oppositional exchanges, and these exchanges werethen transcribed and analyzed. One of the issues at hand was aslingshot battle. All exchanges, from the planning stages to theselection of teams to the preparation of weapons, were studied inmeticulous detail. From these data Goodwin examined content shift andcontext within argument, multi-party argument, and piggybacking, oraffiliation in argument. Analysing their findings, the Goodwins discovered that by followingthe sequence of utterances, it was clear that the four individualsinvolved in the exchange did not have equal positions (107). It seemedclear that each side had a primary spokesman, followed by a secondindividual who followed the behavior of the primary spokesman. This ledGoodwin and Goodwin to conclude that the structures utilised in theprocess of negotiating opposition also provide resources for theparticipants, enabling them to duplicate types of social organization.Thus, the process of arguing essentially gives the participants resources for reproducing a life that is greater than that of the argument itself (113). Finally, Goodwin and Goodwin write that it has been argued that thetalk people produce during their dealings with each other is oftenconsidered to be too disorderly to be properly organized and studied.In response to this, they write that in analysing the data from thisstudy they found anything but disorder. The participants themselves,within the space of a very few turns, produce a range of systematicpermutations on a basic structure with a precision that would tax theingenuity of even the most inventive experimental design to replicate'(114). 6c. Schiffrin: argument: the role of opinions and stories Deborah Schiffrin asserts that everyday forms of talk are guidedby norms of co-operation and competition. Even argument, a form of talkwhich might seem to be the paradigm example of conflict talk, can be aco-operative way of speaking as well as (or instead of) a competitiveway of speaking (241). Schriffin uses Goffmans concepts of footing and frame asadditional links. Footing and frames are very similar to eachother. Schriffin explains the frame as the definition of thesituation, and the footing as the sort of alignments taken up byparticipation (242). She then goes on to explore opinions and stories. With regard toopinions, she admits that it is not always possible to find linguisticfeatures which mark a declarative statement as the presentation of an opinion, and that because of this,one needs to look elsewhere, and she presents her criteria fordiscerning what an opinion actually consists of, concluding thatopinions are unverifiable, internal, subjective depictions of anexternal worldthe facts presented by the author cannot remainundisputed, but the principals stance toward that proposition cannotbe/ disputed 248-9). This, she explains, also gives opinions aparadoxical status in argument, such that they can either initiate orend an argument (249). She then discusses the role of stories, breaking them down into: †¢ selective interpretation †¢ deictic (time) shifts †¢ evaluation †¢ contextualization First of all, she asserts, one must consider that theinterpretation of stories is highly selective. Individuals will choosecertain stories and interpret them in a way that justifies certainbehaviors and actions. Second, there are deictic, or time shifts, to beconsidered. For example, frequently a speaker must re-orient him orherself back to the actual time of the story, to a time when they mighthave had less knowledge or information about the story. The thirdaspect of stories that Schiffrin finds significant are the evaluativedevices used by the storyteller. These devices can be phonological,grammatical, or textual in nature. Finally, she asserts, stories arepresented as frames within certain events are explained,contextualizing them. Text Analysis on Verbal Conflict, using examples from the screenplay of Trainspotting 1. Overview. Trainspotting is a coming-of-age story in story of a group ofheroin-addicted young people from Edinburgh. It is a very vividdepiction of junkie life as well as a cross-section of life in the 90s.The title of the book, Trainspotting, is also a term used in theBritish Isles for people who, as a hobby, keep track of local trainschedules with excessive vigilance. Essentially, the term is synonymouswith wasting time, making this activity a sort of metaphor for heroinaddiction. Both activities are essentially pointless and futile. Drugs are a central focus of the story, and in particular (but notexclusively) heroin. This is very clear from the language that is used.This can be noted from the frequency of the occurrence of terms whichrelate to heroin. There are numerous references to the sale,acquisition, preparation, injection, and withdrawal of heroin. Thedrug-related words which appear with highest frequency include hit,junk, shot, and inject, each of which appear more than ten times.Other commonly used drug words include of course the drugitself—heroin—along with its many variations, such as smack and skag. However, despite the omnipresence of drug and drug-relatedactivities, the story does not set out to glorify heroin use; neitherdoes it condemn or moralize use of the drug. It does, however, give aclear depiction of the bleak environment this group of young peoplemust survive in. The area is working-class. References are made to DSSchecks and Giro, which are terms associated with the life of povertyand struggle. This dismal backdrop, and the fact that they have littlehope of physical escape, makes their wreckless behaviour a bit moreunderstandable. Their addictions seem to be the most reliable, if notthe only, escape. Trainspotting is very definitely a movie about youth culture. Itshows an intricate understanding of the issues and influences uponyouth at that period in time, and it realistically reflects thecultural experiences had by young people. Trainspotting appeals to acult-prone youth because it contains the elements that comprisefoundations of subculture in British culture. Alt hough other worksappealed to the youth culture of that period, Trainspotting enjoyed apopularity that exceeded most of them. This may have been due to itsauthenticity in replicating the youth culture experience. When it first premiered (and even now), the graphic detail ofits language and content was found to be rather shocking by some.However, it resonated very strongly with anyone familiar with drugculture. It reflects, sometimes quite graphically, the underbelly ofEdinburgh in the 1980s, and focuses, as mentioned earlier, mainly onone group of heroin addicts, as well as their friends and families.Their experiences as they struggle with very real issues that many canidentify with: life, work, family, death, the struggle to survive.Other issues—ones that may not have been part of mainstream culture—arepresented as well: AIDS, heroin overdose, heroin withdrawal, and raves,among others. The use of dialect is very powerful in Trainspotting. Inaddition, the social, political, and economic views expressed by thecharacters would have mirrored the views of societys fringemembers—specifically members of the youth and/or drug cultures. Renton and his mates do not rebel against society, but they doattempt to transcend in their destructive ways. Renton often parodiesfamous Thatcher quotes through his â€Å"Choose life† rants and frequentcomments regarding the emptiness of society, as demonstrated in thefollowing examples from the screenplay: †¢ Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family.Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compactdisc players, and electrical tin openers. †¢ Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choosefixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose yourfriends. †¢ Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suiton hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY andwondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting onthat couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffingfucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the endof it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than anembarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned toreplace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life. †¢ I chose not to choose life. I chose something else. And thereasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when youve gotheroin? The lifestyle portrayed in Trainspotting has been described asrepresenting a detached subculture of British youth. However, thereis no evidence in the screenplay to support this assertion. The youngcharacters in this story simply attempt to survive in the largerenvironment by adapting in whatever ways they can, primarily throughmusic and through drugs. They do not attempt to change the status quo,nor are they champions of social reform. They simply react to the bleaksocial conditions that they were born into. Unable to physically escape their environment, they find release in music, drugs, alcohol, and sex. Renton is a prime example of this. He is not proactive, he issimply a survivor. He assesses situations with the manipulative eye ofan addict, and he reacts accordingly, taking advantage when he sees theopportunity. He and his contemporaries are merely representative ofyouth who are struggling for a sense of identity. Their mindset isambiguous; they react to outside societal pressures by employing theirchosen means. But they cannot be considered as a youth subculture basedon their language that has been described in the previous section. Language T

History of the internet :: essays research papers fc

History of the internet Introduction The Internet has revolutionized the computer and communications world like nothing before. The invention of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and computer set the stage for this unprecedented integration of capabilities. The Internet is a world-wide broadcasting capability, a mechanism for gathering information, and a medium for communication and interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic location. The Internet represents one of the most successful examples of the benefits of sustained investment and commitment to research and development of information infrastructure. Beginning with the early research in packet switching, the government, industry and academia have been partners in evolving and deploying this exciting new technology. Today, the average person commonly uses terms like ‘mclennox@ilink.nis.za’ and ‘http://lennox.w3.to’. The Internet today is a widespread information infrastructure, the initial prototype of what is often called the National Information Infrastructure. Its history is complex and its influence reaches not only to the technical fields of computer communications but throughout society as we move toward increasing use of online tools to accomplish electronic commerce, information acquisition, and community operations. The Initial Internet Concepts The original ARPANET grew into the Internet. Internet was based on the idea that there would be multiple independent networks, beginning with the ARPANET as the pioneering packet switching network, but soon to include packet satellite networks, ground-based packet radio networks and other networks. In this approach, the choice of any individual network technology was not dictated by a particular network architecture but rather could be selected freely by a provider and made to interwork with the other networks. Up until that time there was only one general method for federating networks. This was the traditional circuit switching method where networks would interconnect at the circuit level, passing individual bits on a synchronous basis along a portion of an end-to-end circuit between a pair of end locations. Kleinrock had shown in 1961 that packet switching was a more efficient switching method. Along with packet switching, special purpose interconnection arrangements between netwo rks were another possibility. While there were other limited ways to interconnect different networks, they required that one be used as a component of the other. In an open-architecture network, the individual networks may be separately designed and developed and each may have its own unique interface which it may offer to users and other Internet providers. Each network can be designed in accordance with the specific environment and user requirements of that network.

History of AIDS Essay

AIDS is a disease that destroys a person’s immune system. AIDS is a blood born pathogen. It was originally only found in gay men. This led to people calling it the â€Å"gay men disease. † They use to think that this was punishment from God for their being gay. Then researchers found out some drug users were also getting the HIV virus, which leads to AIDS, from sharing needles. After that, it was referred to as the â€Å"gay man and druggy disease. † All of the labels AIDS has been given are completely wrong; even heterosexual, sober people can get AIDS. Considering the many ways of contracting HIV/AIDS it seems foolish to limit the causes to sex and drug use. Jonathan Mann wrote: We do not know how many people developed AIDS in the 1970s, or indeed in the years before. We do now know that the origin of AIDS and the virus HIV was probably in Africa. What we also know is: â€Å"The dominant feature of this first period was silence for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was unknown and transmission was not accompanied by signs or symptoms salient enough to be noticed. While rare, sporadic case reports of AIDS and sero-archaeological studies have documented human infections with HIV prior to 1970, available data suggest that the current pandemic started in the mid- to late 1970s. By 1980, HIV has spread to at least five continents (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia). During this period of silence, spread was unchecked by awareness or any preventive action and approximately 100,000-300,000 persons may have been infected. (qtd in â€Å"History†) The first awareness of AIDS was in June of 1981, when they found traces of PCP in five men in Los Angeles, California. This event occured when they believed only gay men could get the disease, so they were not worried about it spreading to heterosexual people. This was all also before the method of transmission was known; they thought a person could catch it if he or she were standing to close to someone who had the disease. In December of 1981 the first cases of AIDS were reported in intravenous drug users. In 1982 AIDS was still nameless. People started calling it numerous names, such as â€Å"Gay Compromise Syndrome,† â€Å"GRID (gay-related immune deficiency),† â€Å"AID (acquired immunodeficiency disease),† â€Å"gay cancer† and â€Å"community-acquired immune dysfunction. (â€Å"History†) Later that year, reports emerged of children and transfusion recipients getting AIDS. Everyone knew this was no longer a gay related disease. Persons who may be considered at increased risk of AIDS include those with symptoms and signs suggestive of AIDS; sexual partners of AIDS patients; sexually active homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners; Haitian entrants to the United States; present or past abusers of IV drugs; patients with hemophilia; and sexual partners of individuals at increased risk for AIDS. qtd in â€Å"History†) This was the message that CDC (Center for Disease Control) sent out when researchers discovered that AIDS was spread through body fluids. It was not until March 1983 that researchers discovered this. Between 1987 and 1992 there were many prevention groups created. ACT-UP (the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) was founded to attempt to end the AIDS crisis. â€Å"On April 2, 1989, Hans Verhoef, a Dutch man with AIDS, was jailed in Minnesota under the federal law banning travelers with HIV from entering the USA. †(â€Å"History†) In July of 1990, Kimberly Bergalis was infected with HIV by her dentist, David Acer. The CDC would not believe Kimberly, they didn’t think this type of infection was possible. Her father kept telling the CDC that Kimberly would not back down, thus by the end of it all the CDC supported her conclusion. Early in 1991, the CDC confirmed that the same dentist infected two other patients. In the fall of 1991 Kimberly requested mandatory HIV testing for all health care workers, so that â€Å"others don’t have to go through the hell that I have. (â€Å"History†) A few years after the CDC chose not to do the mandatory testing, Kimberly Bergalis died. In 1991 Earvin (Magic) Johnson announced that he was HIV positive; he then retired from professional sports. He wanted to use his celebrity status to educate kids about the disease. He also said, â€Å"I think sometimes we think, well, only gay people can get it – it is not going to happen to me. And here I am saying that it can happen to anyone, even me Magic Johnson. † (â€Å"History†) In 1992 the FDA(Federal Drug Administration) approved the use of two drugs combined, it was the first combination of drugs that was successful. This new drug is not a cure, but it constitutes an important addition to the expanding group of antiviral drugs currently available, including AZT and DDI, for treating people with AIDS. † stated James Mason. (â€Å"History†) On December 1, 1993, World AIDS Day, Benetton and ACT UP Paris put a giant condom (22m x 3. 5m) in the time square equivalent in Paris to raise awareness of the disease. (â€Å"History†) One of the television ads, entitle Automatic, features a condom making its way from the top drawer of a dresser across the room and into bed with a couple about to make love. The voice-over says, ‘It would be nice if latex condoms were automatics. But since they’re not using them should be. Simply because a latex condom, used consistently and correctly will prevent the spread of HIV. ’ (qtd in â€Å"History†) This was a commercial that attempted to make men wear condoms to keep the HIV virus from spreading. If a man wears a condom it will reduce the chance of the woman contracting the virus. In 1994 scientists found a medication that reduced the spread of HIV from mother to infant by two thirds. This was the first sign that mothers can decrease the spread of HIV to their children, and maybe stop it all together. In 1996, a heavyweight boxer was tested positive for HIV before a fight. This was his reaction: â€Å"I thought AIDS was something that happened to gays and drug addicts. A macho guy like me who loves ladies and super fit – he doesn’t get AIDS! † stated Tommy Morrison. (â€Å"History†) In his State of the Union address on 28th January, US president George Bush proposed spending $15 billion in combating AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean over the next 5 years. He called the scheme ‘a great mission of rescue’. â€Å"This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new ‘AIDS’ infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. †-President Bush Just two days later, US Health Secretary Tommy Thompson was elected as the new chairman of the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria. It was hoped this move would prevent a conflict between the Bush administration and the international health community. (qtd in â€Å"History†) Symptoms of AIDS include; heart infections, intestine infections, and other infections that are uncommon. When a person has AIDS he or she gets very uncommon infections that a healthy immune system could fight off. Since his or her immune system slowly gets destroyed he or she can’t fight off infections and viruses that most people can. The most common cause of AIDS is sexual transmission. This can be between two men, two women, or heterosexual intercourse. The second highest cause is being exposed to blood borne pathogens. This can happen from blood donations, or just having open wounds. This however cannot happen from close contact, like some people believe. The least likely way to contract the virus is from mother to child, because we now have drugs that make it so less than one percent of children will get it from their mother. AIDS is a disease that will completely destroy your immune system. It attaches to your white blood cells and keeps them from doing their job. White blood cells would normally fight off any infection that get into your body, but when the HIV virus changes to AIDS it will block the receptors from the message your brain sends saying to attack this bacteria. This means AIDS does not kill you, rather the illness AIDS won’t let your body fight kill you. There are many ways to prevent AIDS, the most effective way is abstinence. If you are not sexually active, you cannot get an STI. However, if you feel you have to have sex use a condom. Not only does it prevent unwanted birth, but it will also reduce the transmission of STIs. (â€Å"CDC†) The importance of condoms in the fight against STDs is readily apparent, whether one focuses on the past, the present or the future. But condoms clearly have not been used as widely as they must be to significantly slow the spread of infection. One solution is the greater promotion of condoms through advertising, education and public-awareness campaigns. We believe another necessary step is to improve condoms – making them more user-friendly, sexy and pleasurable. (qtd in Pinkerton) Another way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to avoid infected blood. So if you are a doctor working on an HIV positive patient, wear rubber gloves. Also, if you are HIV positive, don’t have sexual relations with multiple people, and tell them if you are going to sleep with them. The least you can do is let them know they are risking their lives. William B. Kaliher has investigated cases of venereal disease for more than twenty-five years. In the following viewpoint, Kaliher asserts that while it is mandatory for health departments to find and notify the sexual partners of patients with venereal disease, partner notification in HIV cases is not mandatory. He argues that partner notification is especially important in HIV/AIDS cases, however, as AIDS is always fatal. Without mandatory notification, he contends that those who have HIV can continue to infect other people. If people with HIV/AIDS are notified that they may be infected, they can get tested. qtd in Kaliher) In this society, two things are very clear. The government is not making decisions in the best interest of the public health. The government is also not utilizing every tax payer’s dollar; they are not doing as much to prevent the spreading of AIDS as they can do. Also another way of preventing the spread of AIDS would be to educate the people most likely to spread the disease. The health official could do this by going into the areas where drug users live, and tell them that if they share needles they are at risk of dying earlier than normal people are. They could also talk to the prostitutes in Las Vegas, the women who are with ten, fifteen, or twenty men a night. They could tell them not only are they at higher risk for spreading the disease, but they could also spread it to hundreds of other men. (Kaliher) There is no vaccine against HIV, and no cure for AIDS. The key to decreasing the spread and reducing the impact of this disease is to promote healthy behaviors that prevent infection or minimize the adverse effects of treatment. Health promotion, disease prevention, and symptom management are key components of the research conducted by the biobehavioral scientists supported by the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR). The Institute funds both domestic and international HIV/AIDS research programs. (qtd in NINR) There are also many myths about AIDS. First of all AIDS is not just the gay men disease. Anyone can contract AIDS, and not a lot of people try to prevent spreading it. Like the saying â€Å"gay as AIDS† that statement is very inaccurate. AIDS is present in many heterosexual peoples’ lives. Also AIDS is not only in drug addicts who share needles. Someone cannot call AIDS the druggy disease or the gay men disease just because they were some of the first people to have it. The solution to the myths about AIDS is to increase awareness on all of the aspects of AIDS. People need to know that people can get AIDS from more than just sharing needles and having gay sex. People can catch AIDS from their mother when they are born or being breast fed, people can catch it from having heterosexual sex, and people can also catch it when they receive a blood donation from an infected donor.

Impact Of Globalization On India s Economy - 2680 Words

India is a nation that in recent years has been affected greatly by processes of globalisation. India has truly felt the forces of globalisation as it has morphed the very nature of the nations’ economic and societal processes. Globalisation is defined as the integration between different countries and economies leading to the increased impact of international influences on all aspects of life and economic activity. In order to measure the impact of globalisation on India’s economy one must consider the level of economic development and growth in the nation, and also understand the difference between the two. Economic growth refers to the increase in market value of the goods and services produced in an economy over time. It is generally measured by Gross Domestic Product. Economic development however, is a much broader term that refers to changes in overall well being and is measured using a variety of quality of life indicators such as the Human development index. For hundreds of years India has engaged in trade with far flung nations and as such globalisation is not a foreign concept for the nation. However, in recent years as a nation that is quickly emerging as a new economic superpower, globalisation has taken on an increasingly important role in the economy. As of 2011, India accounted for 1.95 % of world trade , a figure that has only come about due to forces of globalisation havi ng an active impact on the Indian economy. India has been forced to trade extensivelyShow MoreRelatedImpact of Globalization on Indian Economy1572 Words   |  7 PagesGlobalization is the new notion that has come to rule the world since the nineties of the last century with the end of the cold war. The frontlines of the state with increased reliance on the market economy and renewed belief in the private capital and assets, a process of structural alteration encouraged by the studies and influences of the World Bank and other International organisations have started in many of countries. Also Globalisation has brought in new avenues to developing countries. GreaterRead MoreAnalyze the Effects of Globalization on Native-No Western Cultural Practices1545 Words   |  7 PagesGLT1 Task 1 Analyze the effects of globalization on native-no Western cultural practices Issues in Behavioral Science Jamie B BSN 06/18/2014 Western Governor’s University In this essay, I will discuss the matter of Globalization of two nations, South Korea and India. Globalization can be defined as, in simple terms, as the process of making something, anything available worldwide. It is a collaboration between countries, exchanging goods, services, workers, ideas, and even culture, whichRead MoreHow Globalisation has affected developing countries in the Asia - pacific region1609 Words   |  7 Pagestrend occurring in the world economy is the process of globalization. Globalization is the progressive integration between national economies and the breaking down of barriers between trade and financial flows around the world, which will eventually lead to the emergence of a single world market. Globalization has affected many different nations in different ways, depending on their degree of development and extent to which they are open to the flows of the world economy. China, which is one of theRead MoreGlobalization Essay1084 Words   |  5 PagesIm pact of Globalization The implications of globalization for a national economy are many. Globalization has intensified interdependence and competition between economies in the world market. These economic reforms have yielded the following significant benefits; Globalization in India had a favorable impact on the overall growth rate of the economy. This is major improvement give that India’s growth rate in the 1970 s was very low at 3% and GDP growth in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, KoreaRead MoreGlobalization of Non-Western Countries1100 Words   |  5 PagesAs globalization continues to spread over the world, many countries are beginning to feel its effects. One example is the auto industry. The automobile business is evolving rapidly on a worldwide basis. Car and parts manufacturers are merging, component design and manufacture are now frequently outsourced instead of being created in-house, brands are changing and the giant automobile companies are expanding deeper into providing financial services to car buyers. Meanwhile, all of the biggest, mostRead MoreImpact of Globalization on Non Western Culture Essay1387 Words   |  6 PagesImpact of Globalization on Non Western Cultures Examples of Globalization’s Impact Globalization is far reaching in this day and age. Globalization is the worldwide flow of goods, services, money, people, information, and culture. It leads to a greater interdependence and mutual awareness among the people of the world (Tischler, 2011, 2007, p. 430). One non-Western culture that has been impacted by globalization is China. An example of the impact of globalization on China is their economy. Read MoreGlobalization And Its Impact On Country1578 Words   |  7 PagesGlobalization is the process in which people, companies and governments from different nations globalize their trade or business at international level. Globalization is not a new process, In past years people used to imports and exports of things at a long distance from their hometown to another place but nowadays globalization is very powerful and have a new face and it has been spread all over the world. Globalization is a good way to connect countries, people and do trade on a large scale andRead M oreGlobalization And International Business : Globalization954 Words   |  4 Pages 3/11/15 India Intro Globalization/ International Business In the text International Business, globalization is defined as the â€Å"acceleration and extension of the interdependence of economic and business activities across national boundaries (p 3)†. Many multinational corporations manufacture products in different nations and selling internationally to different nations. With the constant flow of goods and service help the integration of economies and societies. Since the recentRead MoreGlobalization : A Positive Light926 Words   |  4 Pageseasily from all over the world. There are growing worries that globalization makes people lose their character. However, globalization`s dominance can be viewed in a positive light. This essay will explain why globalization will not put people in danger of becoming the same. It will then discuss that globalization helps different nations keep their traditional culture and stimulates economic growth in developing countries. Globalization shall be beneficial to every culture because people could showRead MoreGlobalization s Impact On India1449 Words   |  6 PagesGlobalization s Impact on India How is it that Coca Cola, Pepsi, Sprite and many more drinks are all round the world? Globalization is the reason why many drinks and other ornaments are all over the world. Globalization is when developed and developing countries have global trade, and also companies developing themselves in other countries all around the world. Many of the little things you see have just one owner. For instance, the PepsiCo company owns the famous Quaker Oats, Lays, Pepsi, Tropicana