We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
366460
Thu, 17 May 07 12:05 PM
This is from the book "From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication By Yishai Tobin". Talking about Hebrew:
"the extra-linguistic contexts between the encoder and decoder (e.g. the social and professional distance between them) may also influence the choice of tense used in these utterances: the more distant the relationship, the more likely a remote form will be used to convey these specific kinds of messages; while the closer the relationship, the more likely a proximate form will be deemed acceptable or appropriate."
I think the same goes for English usage. What do you think?
Joined on
Thu, Jan 15 2004
Senior Member
3,149
Hume said that if we had perfect or complete descriptive knowledge of reality, we could not, by reasoning, derive a single valid "ought".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forbes
+
366773
Thu, 17 May 07 10:04 PM
I can't answer that as I don't know what the writer means by a "remote form" or a "proximate form" nor what "utterances" or "specific kinds of messages" are being referred to.
"Encoder" and "decoder"? Does he mean "speaker" and "listener"?
Joined on
Thu, Jun 16 2005
Regular Member
895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
366795
Thu, 17 May 07 10:33 PM
I'm not sure about the absolutes. Perhaps "the more distant" and "the closer" the speaker perceives the relationship to be.
1. What if you give him a call? (proximate)
2. What if you were to give him a call? (remote)
#2 sounds more polite to me; it might indicate deference, tentativeness, or condescension.
MrP
Joined on
Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member
13,616
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
366986
Fri, 18 May 07 07:11 AM
<Perhaps "the more distant" and "the closer" the speaker perceives the relationship to be.>
But many relationships are factually/literally distant. I agree with your examples above.
<#2 sounds more polite to me; it might indicate deference, tentativeness, or condescension.>
Would you add unobtrusiveness to that list?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
366996
Fri, 18 May 07 08:09 AM
 Forbes wrote: | |
I can't answer that as I don't know what the writer means by a "remote form" or a "proximate form" nor what "utterances" or "specific kinds of messages" are being referred to.
"Encoder" and "decoder"? Does he mean "speaker" and "listener"?
|
|
Remote forms would be such things as past tense verbs and demonsratives that express distance (that, there, etc.) and proximate form would be such things as present tense verbs and demonsratives that express closeness (this, here, etc.). Utterances mentined in the text above are in Hebrew, but English examples would be something like the difference between these:
Can you come tomorrow?/Could you come tomorrow?
Do you want a drink?/Would you like a drink?
Do me a favour, will you?/I want to ask you for a favour/I wanted to ask you for a favour
I wonder if you can explain.../I wondered if you could explain...
<"Encoder" and "decoder"? Does he mean "speaker" and "listener"?>
Yes, or writer and reader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
367230
Fri, 18 May 07 09:10 PM
| Milky wrote: | |
<Perhaps "the more distant" and "the closer" the speaker perceives the relationship to be.>
But many relationships are factually/literally distant.
|
|
Yes, that's true. But I think I see the distance/closeness as what the speaker wants to express, rather than what the distance/closeness really is.
(That then allows for the discourtesy of extreme politeness to a close relative, for instance.)
|
<#2 sounds more polite to me; it might indicate deference, tentativeness, or condescension.>
Would you add unobtrusiveness to that list?
|
|
Yes indeed; and "modesty", "humility", etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
367285
Sat, 19 May 07 12:30 AM
<Yes, that's true. But I think I see the distance/closeness as what the speaker wants to express, rather than what the distance/closeness really is.>
If a student goes to his/her university professor and says "I want to speak you", what would the speaker be wanting to express? What would it be if the same student were to say "I wanted to speak to you" instead? Could the student say "I will want to speak to you tomorrow", or would it be normal for the professor to say that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
367288
Sat, 19 May 07 12:39 AM
If I were the professor, and the student said, "I want to speak to you", I would take it as an expression of urgency, aggression, etc., depending on the context; or it might simply be the habit of a particularly direct student. I think all the interpretations would have "unceremoniousness" in common, though.
The more oblique "I wanted..." would not have that effect: the speaker is distancing himself from the "wanting".
It wouldn't necessarily reflect any real closeness or distance between the professor and the student, though: the "direct" student might be a stranger, and the "oblique" student an old familiar who understood his professor's liking for obliqueness.
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
367297
Sat, 19 May 07 01:08 AM
<The more oblique "I wanted..." would not have that effect: the speaker is distancing himself from the "wanting".>
And those students who've been taught to use the oblique form in such contacts with professors, have been told it is out of respect. There, it seems nothing to do with what the speaker wants to, personally, express. I think urgency can be expressed by either form, but the "wanted to" shows respect, or acceptance of social (professional) distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|