"Can you go swimming with us?" and "Can you skate?"

[kellogg]

Data FOUR: Potential concept = plans for the afternoon) 

KT: Chris and I will go swimming this afternoon. Can you go swimming with us? 

S: No. 

KT: No? 

Ss: (laughing) 

Why do you think the child answers "NO!"? There are (at least) three reasons why the child should NOT answer this way:

a) It's not the communicative function taught in this lesson ("Sounds good"/"Sorry I can't").

b) It's really VERY rude. If you respond to a lot of invitations like this you are going to stop getting invitations pretty soon.

c) Of course, the teacher is role playing--she is not REALLY going swimming with Chris at all. So "No" really suggests a refusal to role play, not a refusal to go swimming. This is also not a good idea; when teachers ask you to do something, you should do it.

But why does the child refuse to role play? Does this have ANYTHING to do with the "literalness" we see in complexive thinking? 

S: (looking at the board) Sorry, I can't. 

Of course, this TOO is a form of literalness, of concreteness, isn't it?

KT: Why not? Why not? Why? 

S: No ... *&^%^& 

What is the child doing HERE? Repeating her answer? Or initiating a new answer?

KT: No swimming suit? No 수영복? 

How does KT interpret the child's second "No". As a reptition or as a new initiate? (A very clever teacher!)

Ss: (laughing a lot) 

KT: No 수영복? No swimming suit? 

Notice that the teacher VARIES her uptake a lot. What does this suggest about HER interpretation of the child's reasons for saying "No". Does she realize that the child is refusing to role play?

KT: Why not? How about skating? Let's go skating. Can you skate? 

Now, in some ways THIS is the most interesting part of the data. The FT (Chris) and the KT (Ms. Hong) have agreed to go swimming. S says no. So the "plan" switches to "skating".

Is it really a plan? Or is it a complex? Or is it just a heap?

칠판을 보며 대답을 수정하여 대답한 학생은 syncretic heaps 의 수준이 아니라 complexive level 에서 말하고 있다.

Yes! The child is not simply acting. She is REacting. Reacting, that is, responding, is more objective; a response is almost always objectively linked to an initiate (except in the case of autism).

So it's not a syncretic, purely SUBJECTIVE, utterance. It's an objective one. But why isn't it conceptual?

The potential concept here is "plans for the afternoon". "Sorry, I can't" is certainly a response to "Can you go swimming?".

 이 학생은 배운 표현을(또는 배우고 있는 표현을) 사용하려고 노력하고 있다.

In the data, we can see that Ms. Hong has a very OPTIMISTIC, GOOD-NATURED, even SUNNY interpretation of the child's (very rude and uncooperative) initial response.

Sunny, too, has a sunny interpretation. She assumes that the child is working hard to use the expression‎ on the blackboard.

Of course, it's also possible to have a rather GLOOMY, ILL-NATURED, and CLOUDY intepretation.

Notice, though, that although teacher UPTAKES a lot of what the child says, the child chooses a way of responding that does NOT uptake what the teacher says ("No"). When she says "Sorry, I can't" she is really NOT responding to the teacher at all; she's responding to the blackboard.

또한 conceptual level 도 아니다. 만약 conceptual level이었다면 칠판에 적힌 표현 Sorry, I can't. 을 보며 읽을 필요가 없이 자연스럽게 대답했을 것이다.

I think that Sunny has the RIGHT interpretation but for the WRONG reason. She says that the use of "Sorry, I can't" is not conceptual because the child is simply reading it from the blackboard.

Do you really think that reading is NEVER conceptual? When I use a subway map to go somewhere in Seoul that I have never been before, I am NOT using a concept? Why not?

하지만 이 학생은 그 표현을 알고 사용할 줄은 알지만, concept을 진정 이해한 것처럼 보이지는 않는다. 

Remember that our potential concept is PLANS FOR THE AFTERNOON. I think it's certainly true that if she had really understood this potential concept, or agreed to act as if she understood the potential concept, she would understand that "Sorry, I can't" is quite different from "No": it has a very different EMOTIONAL effect on the hearer, and therefore it corresponds to a very different communicative function.

"Sorry I can't" suggests regret at the necessity of a refusal. This regret gives the inviter some "체면"; it also opens the possiblity that the inviter may want to invite again (which is why Ms. Hong issues ANOTHER invitation at the end of the data).

Now, there is SOME evidence that the child has grasped the concept of "체면", and that is why she reads the phrase "Sorry, I can't" from the blackboard. What is NOT clear is whether she has grasped the potential concept of plans for the afternoon.

Some final problems to think about:

a) Is it clear that the SAME structure can realize two completely different functions? Is it clear to the child that there is a FUNCTIONAL difference between "Can you go swimming with us?" and "Can you swim?"

b) Our potential concept is "plans for the afternoon", and the teacher uses a kind of imaginary situation, a role play, to introduce it. When the teacher ends with "skating", does she STRENGTHEN the role play or weaken it?

c) If Sunny is right (and I think she is), then this is a complex. But if it IS a complex, then what KIND of complex? Is it associative, collective, chain, or diffuse? Is it a pseudoconcept?

K-Dragon!