In The New Yorker article called "The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak," Adam Gopnik argues "[discourse markers] should be imported as a sign of a meticulous grasp of the truth that there is no settled truth, that all narration is subjective, that every account must always be qualified." Note that his claims on this subject are definitely not widely accepted by either most teens or adults. Uh, what do you, like, make of his argument?
27 Comments
Chloe Cassidy
6/14/2016 05:54:34 am
I disagree that discourse markers make all narration subjective. However, it does fail to give a more broadened perspective.
Reply
Isabella LeClaire
6/14/2016 11:13:26 am
I do not necessarily agree that "discourse markers" always make narration subjective; however, I do agree that some of the time, when people use the word "like", they are casually, yet purposefully indicating that what they are saying is not completely credible or accurate. Also, Adam Gopnik makes a decent case by providing an example and discussing scientific studies about teens, personality traits, and their language.
Reply
Lelaina Boyce
6/14/2016 06:17:03 pm
I don't necessarily feel like the truth should always be considered subjective because of the use of discourse markers, but I do think that it should be realized by all that they are used to give a vague sense of a bigger picture.
Reply
Jacob VanderRoest
6/14/2016 07:00:04 pm
I disagree with the claim that the use of "discourse markers" should be "admired" and "not belittled." I believe that discourse markers are used subconsciously and are not used in a deliberate manner. In my opinion, they are utilized to fill an empty, awkward second of silence in a conversation. The discourse markers provide teens with an opportunity to think of what they're going to say by simply saying "um" and thinking of their next sentence while pronouncing the discourse marker. The use of discourse markers should not be frowned upon but it shouldn't be "admired" either. Discourse markers reveal that the speaker isn't completely sure on what they wish to say; in addition, the use of discourse markers may be a force of habit. Overall, an individual should not be "admired" by using discourse markers; it is simply bad habit and/or a subconscious action.
Reply
Sydnie Avery
6/14/2016 07:03:10 pm
Gopnik uses research to argue that discourse markers are used to compress sentences and signify that something is being left out of a story; he believes that they make narration subjective. I disagree that in using the word "like," teenagers are being less accurate. Using fillers in speaking does not necessarily mean that details are being left out. "Like"s are not used only in rephrasing and compressing sentences. In my opinion, teenagers use fillers in order to have time to think about what they're saying. It makes our sentences run more smoothly. Many people use the words "um" and "uh," and it's not always because they are omitting details from their sentence. People use discourse markers so they can think about what word to use next or how to phrase the rest of their sentence. Using "like" does not make a story any less true; it doesn't mean that there is more information that is not being told. I believe that "like" is simply used to stall while speaking.
Reply
Kierstyn Stoin
6/15/2016 08:51:04 am
I disagree with Adam Gopnik's claim those who use discourse markers should be admired, rather than belittled. However, I also do not agree that using discourse markers should be frowned upon either. When teenagers use discourse markers such as "I mean," or "you know" they are not using them purposely, nor are they using them to leave out details. Oftentimes, teens use discourse markers as a transition between two sentences. Teens do not usually use discourse markers to rephrase their previous statement; therefore, they shouldn't be admired for using them. Teens, however, shouldn't be looked down upon for using them either. It isn't necessarily true that when one uses a discourse marker, that they are leaving out details. More often than not, they use them subliminally; therefore, they're not leaving out details that they would otherwise include.
Reply
Mr. Shaw
6/15/2016 11:34:35 am
What about his assertion "of the truth that there is no settled truth." Is truth absolute or is it always subjective?
Reply
Sam Putzke
6/15/2016 12:04:36 pm
In my opinion, "discourse markers" are a way of filling silence while speaking. They do not deliver a concise description of what is trying to be said. Discourse markers can put a twist on the truth, but it doesn't change the overall idea. I think that the truth is subjective most times. It is based on people's opinions. I don't believe that it is a conscious decision to use discourse markers, so teens shouldn't be praised for using them. I think that it is true that discourse markers may cause people to leave out details, but I don't think they're doing it on purpose.
Reply
Emily Myers
6/15/2016 06:10:45 pm
As a person who commonly uses most of the mentioned discourse markers I find that they are easier to use and understand in normal conversation. In my opinion/experience these discourse markers don't necessarily show that the person has a meticulous grasp of the truth that there is no settled truth, but more that they need just that extra second to think about what they are going to say next. I feel that using discourse markers helps the person relate to the people they are talking to, but in doing so it makes them sound a little unintelligent. Though this opinion is highly hypocritical, and I would like to believe that I am a more conscientious person for using discourse markers, I just can't fully get behind the idea that kidspeak is conscientious.
Reply
Rachael Roberts
6/17/2016 07:52:27 am
Like Isabella stated, I don't agree that discourse markers always make narration subjective; however, I agree with what she has to say about the conscientiousness of the person speaking. I feel that if the person would take the time to think about what they had to say beforehand, they would not only sound less annoying, but more intelligent. As a younger teen my parents always told me to think about what I said before I said it when I used the word "like" for everything. While I still use it today, it's not the majority of my vocabulary. I think that discourse markers are a way of filling in your speech instead of a pause of silence, but if overused, they become distracting to the listener.
Reply
Ariel Shull
6/17/2016 07:53:06 am
I agree with Isabella in that younger people use the word "like" casually in their everyday speech when implying something that may not necessarily be accurate. Though sometimes people could use it intentionally. I also agree that “conscientious people are generally more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings.”
Reply
Hanna Bronz
6/17/2016 01:50:56 pm
To me, discourse markers have their place in everyday conversations but not in "official" type settings. One of the most interesting points made in the article (in my opinion) was that people who are described by personality tests as "conscientious" (or self aware) were more likely to use discourse markers. If you are more self aware would you not be more apt to avoid repetitive "likes" and "ums" in your speech? I suppose that the other way to see it is that people who are more self aware are conscious of what they say so they need more time to form what they intend to say. Either way, I don't agree that a conversation with discourse markers causes it to be subjective. A great scientist can use discourse markers in his speech about a groundbreaking discovery and the speech will still present a groundbreaking discovery. It will not be based on opinion any more or less if he interjects his sentences with an occasional "like" or "um". That being said, there is a time when interjections and discourse markers are simply inappropriate to be used. A teen may use it in their everyday language and be perfectly OK so I feel that it's a purely situational conundrum. We could argue that the scientist who interjects wouldn't be taken as seriously as if he were to speak without interjections but it is still not subjective because the same information is being presented.
Reply
Brooke
6/17/2016 05:51:54 pm
While they do have the evidence, I have to disagree with them on some level. It's not that I don't -at least fully- agree with them, but it's more that I don't agree that the more conscientious person uses them. While, yes, that person could be thoughtful, I feel that it's really the people who are speaking so fast that they have no choice but to think aloud. This ends in the endless "likes" and "you know's". In conclusion, the extensive use of those really shows that their mind is just moving too fast to fully understand and think ahead for what they want to say. To me, that doesn't make them smarter, but allows for more risk of saying something wrong or incoherent. That, my friend, is really bad.
Reply
Emily Pantelleria
6/20/2016 08:07:30 am
In my opinion, the use of discourse markers, are used mostly as a filler to give people a second to think about what they are going to say. I don't necessarily agree with his comment that the word "like" is used purposefully to take out some truths in the story. I believe people use it to sum up the event, not to say exactly what happened in every detail. That, however, doesn't make it any less true.
Reply
Ray Bartlett
6/20/2016 05:48:08 pm
Adam Gopnik claims that discourse makers, such as "like" or "um" are used by teenagers to alter the truth and leave details out of stories. I completely disagree with this, because discourse makers are involuntary tics. When people use them. they aren't consciously aware of it. If anything, discourse markers are simply filler words the speaker uses when they don't know what to say or can't think of how to say something. Gopnik seems to offer a solution by making a condescending "translation" of kidspeak in a way nobody will ever talk. He then says people who use it should be "admired" which doesn't really make any sense, and after claiming it belittles the truth says discourse markers should not be banished from polite or public dialouge. The article basically takes something that isn't a problem, blows it out of proportion, doesn't take a very clear stand on the "issue,"and offers no solutions or actual helpful information.
Reply
Alyssa
6/21/2016 04:00:42 pm
The use of discourse markers I believe are just people trying to gather their thoughts of what they are wanting or trying to say. A deeper truth to it seems a little far-fetched. I have heard people say 'like' and 'um' since elementary school and when they say it, it sounds like they are just thinking about where they want to go with their thoughts.
Reply
Caitlin Demerest
6/24/2016 09:07:04 am
In the argument of “discourse markers" there are really only two sides to hold. One; that you agree with Adam Gopnik and the use of them is directly linked to the conscientious of the speaker, or two; they actually only link to a non-conscientious way of speaking where one doesn't take into consideration the listener’s frame of reference. I personally agree with Gopnik’s claim that “discourse markers” are linked to the conscientiousness of the person and what is behind what they are saying.
Reply
Georgia Richardson-Smaller
6/28/2016 10:33:03 am
Gopnik argues that discourse markers are used mostly by teenagers and make speech subjective. I agree with parts of Gopnik’s arguments for why a speaker would include discourse markers in their narrations. Discourse markers are used when the speaker is relaying information that might not be completely accurate. For example, the common discourse marker “like” is used when the object is similar to something, but not exactly alike. Gopnik labeled the person who uses discourse markers for this reason the “conscientious” person. I agree with this, although I also think people–usually teenagers–use discourse markers when they are nervous or are thinking of what to say next; they use the words subconsciously.
Reply
Thea Johnson
6/29/2016 06:40:20 pm
The argument posed by Adam Gopnik in his article "The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak" is certainly a thought-provoking one, as it establishes ideas that are not conventional in today’s society. Though I am often an accidental user of “discourse markers,” I view it as important to attempt to avoid them in speech. If inserted in conversation too frequently, they can dilute the actual point one is trying to make and simply become annoying and redundant. In his article, Gopnik enlightens the reader on a different side of the matter by arguing that “discourse markers” - including “like,” “you know,” and “I mean” - and filled pauses - “um” and “uh” - characterize a more conscientious narrator who has “‘a desire to share or rephrase opinions to recipients’” (“The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak”). On one hand, I agree, for such filler words avoid the direct restatement of the speech of others and thus force a slightly different form of the original narration. However, at the same time, I think there is typically little conscious thought put towards the placement of the discourse markers. They often seem to be carelessly inserted when proper words lack. Therefore, rather than allowing for speech to demonstrate greater scrupulousness, I find them to cause for it to dwindle. As for Adam Gopnik’s argument that “[discourse markers] should be imported as a sign of a meticulous grasp of the truth that there is no settled truth, that all narration is subjective, that every account must always be qualified,” it is definitely exaggerated. These words are truly just facets of everyday dialogue, and the truth is that they do no more than provide fillers when working to get the sentences out or looking for the proper thing to say next.
Reply
Jadin Reed
6/30/2016 10:52:33 am
I agree with Adam Gopnik when he says that discourse marker are used mostly by teenagers and make speech subjective. Listening to any group of teenagers talk you will here no less then 50 "like" and "um". I think that we use these "discourse marker" because people are used to texting on their phones and typing on the computer. We are used to have as much time as we need to figure out what we need to say. So, when we are talking face to face we use these words to give us more time to think about what we are saying.
Reply
Claire Conley
7/10/2016 09:33:44 am
Gopnik talks about how kids at a certain age use discourse markers in their sentence. He says women and girls use them most often. He claims that these discourse markers mean that the person is leaving out information, or that their statement isn't necessarily true. I disagree with his opinion. Many people who talk like this don't leave information out and most of the time they don't mean to do it. But, I do disagree with the fact they they should be admired. Using these discourse markers are not proper English.
Reply
Darien Carson
7/16/2016 01:18:18 pm
Gopnik’s perspective on the usage of “discourse markers” promotes unorthodox viewpoints for today's society. These viewpoints are clearly defined in Adam Gopnik’s “The Consciousness of Kidspeak” where he states “[discourse markers should be imported as a sign of a meticulous grasp of the truth that there is no settled truth, that all narration is subjective, that every account must always be qualified.” I disagree with the assertion that discourse markers make all narrations subjective. Although they may be used in a subjective manner at times, they should be viewed as a common error in everyday speech. I also disagree that “discourse markers” should be considered as fractions of the truth; however, I do believe when one says “like” they are inadvertently indicating that some parts of the truth are being left out. Finally, I believe that the most common use of a “discourse marker” is simply by mistake. Many hear “discourse markers” throughout their entire lives; subsequently, they (discourse markers) are used subconsciously without withholding the truth or subjective intent. “Discourse markers” are used in everyday conversations either subjectively, to abstain from the truth, or most commonly simply by mistake. Gopnik’s views on the use of “discourse markers” described through “The Consciousness of Kidspeak” provides a thought provoking insight on the use of discourse markers.
Reply
Ally Giles
7/18/2016 10:54:32 am
I agree with Adam Gopnik, when he states, “Far from being banished from polite or public dialogue, their discourse markers should mark our own—they should be imported as a sign of a meticulous grasp of the truth that there is no settled truth, that all narration is subjective, that every account must always be qualified.” As a teenage girl I use discourse markers and this is one of the reason why I do. As he said, when they are used, “those “like's are being used to register that what’s being narrated may not be utterly faithful to each detail—that it may not be, as a fourteen-year-old might say, “literally” true—but that it is essentially true,...” I however, feel they are not always used in a subjective way but sometimes to replace an um or uh. When talking, you stop to think and to fill that space you use a “like” or “you know.” I disagree with Adam Gopnik’s implication that when it comes to discourse markers, “We should admire, not belittle, kids who use it.” I don't feel they should be praised but, I don't feel they should be frowned upon. I feel we should understand why people use discourse markers and accept them.
Reply
Dan Chalice
7/23/2016 08:02:19 am
I feel I would mostly agree with Jacob in said argument. The use of these words in the midst of conversation happens without us even knowing it. Mr. Walker told us point blank when learning about public speaking, "You will use discourse markers whether you like it or not at first". We use discourse markers automatically because our brains have taught themselves that this is the best way to buy time while thinking of what we want to say. This is also the reason you see discourse markers mostly in small talk as opposed to communication on a larger scale, like a speech for example. You have time to write out your thoughts and to practice communicating them. You don't have to buy time because you already have everything you want to say memorized. I don't believe using discourse markers all the time should be praised, however. Even if it does show a desire to communicate well, it does look a bit childish and ridiculous. It especially looks ridiculous the way Gopnik was portraying it. With time and effort you won't need discourse markers and your speech will sound much more eloquent and precise.
Reply
Hayley Christine
8/9/2016 09:53:22 am
In my opinion, discourse markers are usually, but not always, used as a way to change your mind while you are speaking. In Gopnik's opinion, after research he has done, discourse markers are used when someone simply does not want to tell the truth, giving themselves one more second to think of a way to change the subject, or change what they were originally planning to say, He makes it clear that he wishes for people to admire kids who do use it. As someone who does use discourse markers, I use it to give myself more time to think of what I'm going to say next, not to change the subject. How do you admire something done just out of a bad habit?
Reply
Peter Palazzolo
8/9/2016 03:02:02 pm
Starting as somewhat of a joke, Gopnik must have been surprised to learn that his initial statement was true. Yet, it is hard to fully agree with these studies. Although the results showed that more kids using this language were smarter on average, more testing must be done before there is any solid evidence. Kidspeak does not show a lack of intelligence; however, it still shows that the speaker is having trouble concentrating or finding the right words needed to get their point across.
Reply
Taylor Conner
10/15/2016 09:14:14 am
Gopnik claimed that discourse markers such as "like and "um" should be imported as a sign that "there is no settled truth." I completely disagree with that. Mant teens use "like" or "um" just to fill the spaces when they are thinking while talking, and most of the time they don't mean to. I think that it is just a habit of most teens today to use discourse markers. Because of this, I disagree with his idea that “We should admire, not belittle, kids who use it.” Kids who use discourse markers shouldn't be praised for it, but they shouldn't be looked down upon either. It's just a habit.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
August 2016
Categories |