In short, do you buy that “'So we, like, um, went to the pizza place, but the, uh, you know—the guy?—said, like, no, so we were, like, O.K., so we, uh, decided that we’d go to, like, a coffee shop, but, uh, Colette can’t—she has, like, a gluten thing. You know what I mean? So that’s, like, why we came home, and, um, you know, would you, like, make us eggs?'” actually means “'So we tried, as it were, to go and enjoy a pizza, but the, so to speak, maître d’ of the establishment claimed—a statement that we were in no social position to dispute—that there was, so to speak, "no room for us at the inn."'"
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 both fairly sophisticated and definitely not widely accepted by either most teens or adults. To make sure you totally understand what his argument about "discourse markers" actually is, you may have to read the article two or three times and look up some difficult vocabulary words. In around 200 words, to what extent, if at all, do you agree with his assertion on this verbal trend? Feel free to offer your own examples from your experience.
In short, do you buy that “'So we, like, um, went to the pizza place, but the, uh, you know—the guy?—said, like, no, so we were, like, O.K., so we, uh, decided that we’d go to, like, a coffee shop, but, uh, Colette can’t—she has, like, a gluten thing. You know what I mean? So that’s, like, why we came home, and, um, you know, would you, like, make us eggs?'” actually means “'So we tried, as it were, to go and enjoy a pizza, but the, so to speak, maître d’ of the establishment claimed—a statement that we were in no social position to dispute—that there was, so to speak, "no room for us at the inn."'"
31 Comments
Gabe Smit
7/21/2018 11:58:06 am
In his article, “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” published on The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik argues that, “All of the circumlocutions of Kidspeak underline not sloppy indifference but undue scrupulousness.” Kidspeak is referred to as the dialect commonly used by teenage girls which consists of “discourse markers.” These discourse markers can be recognized as “um,” “like,” and so on. Gopnik brings about the idea 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.” Although I am an abuser of Kidspeak myself, I disagree with Gopnik on his stance. I believe that many of the individuals who use the dialect tend to use it more as a simpler and less intellect way of expressing themselves, not needing to focus on sophisticated words and expression of detail. Gopnik also supports the idea that, “...discourse fillers are a sign of more considered speech.” I disagree with this statement as well. Personally, I have never encountered a person who uses Kidspeak as a way to express themselves and add more detail than expressed in regular dialect. Overall, instead of seeing Kidspeak as a thoughtful and tentative dialect, I agree with most of society with the idea of it being a less intelligent way of expression.
Reply
Sydney Kierzek
7/21/2018 07:49:18 pm
In “The Conscientious of Kidspeak” by Adam Gopnik, Kidspeak is looked at positively. Kidspeak is the over usage of common words including “like” or “you know.” These words are known as “discourse markers” and are mainly used by younger women and children. In the article, Gopnik attempts to prove that people who use discourse markers tend to be more conscientious. “The study also shows that the use of the discourse markers is particularly common among speakers who score on a personality test as ‘conscientious’—‘people who are more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings’” As much as I wish it were true, I disagree with Gopnik. I have often caught myself blurting out a discourse marker unknowingly and wondering where that came from. The more I pay attention, the more I notice it in other people’s language. When you think about it, Kidspeak is rarely ever grammatically correct. More like a type of slang, in my opinion. In my personal experience, I have found that people who use more Kidspeak are either aware of their surroundings or very aware of themselves. In other words, I have found people who have used discourse markers more self obsessed and less thoughtful, or too shy and not truly aware of themselves. There have been a few cases where Gopnik’s point is true, although I still wouldn’t consider Kidspeak as a trait for only conscientious people. In the end, I feel as though Kidspeak does not have any real effect on personality. This article opened a challenging thought for my mind, so I did like it, even though I disagree with the author.
Reply
Delaney Dewey
7/25/2018 06:43:05 am
In Gopnik’s article, “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” claims that the cause for discourse markers is due to a consciousness of themselves and their surroundings. If unfamiliar with Kidspeak, this refers to the unnecessary utilization of vocabulary such as, “I mean, you know, and like.” Gopnik responds to Kidspeak as “a classic instance of compression in balance with concision.” Thus, meaning that these discourse markers are oriented into language in order to make their dialogue shorter and to-the-point. I strongly believe that Kidspeak is an issue developed among thousands of individuals, and as generations continue, these discourse markers are as well. Just recently I took part in an organization which focused on a local business and a problem their company had for our team to solve. Towards the end of the two weeks, we created a presentation and pitched our idea to judges as well as the company. When preparing for this presentation, our teacher/guide tallied the number of times each of us said “like.” The results were astounding! It stated that every minute one of us said “like” a minimum of two times. Gospik explains that such an instance is due to an one being aware of themselves and their surroundings as well as not being “utterly faithful to each detail.” The way I interpreted this article is that when individuals are unconfident and alienated in a surrounding or location, such discourse markers are much more likely. As well as when uncertain of detailed narratives, such Kidspeak is often complimented. Kidspeak is a concern for generations to come and if such language as discourse markers include, eloquent language will have little to no importance.
Reply
Katie LeClaire
7/25/2018 11:11:56 am
The article, “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak” by Adam Gopnik provides interesting claims about the dialect Kidspeak, that we, high schoolers, are surrounded by. The most basic point that Gopnik supports is that “discourse fillers are a sign of more considered speech, and so it makes sense that conscientious people use them more often.” Discourse fillers, which include the common phrases “like,” “um,” and “you know,” are, at least to my observation, used a lot by many different people. I haven’t noticed that, at our age, having this certain type of personality has made a difference in who uses the phrases, but this could easily be something I’m wrong about. I’m also not necessarily sure I agree with the claim that these phrases are more considered speech, to me they seem to be habitual and random spurts of language. Gopnik also argues that the “point of the ‘likes’s and other tics is to supply the information that there is a lot more information not being offered,” basically stating that these interjections are always an effort to communicate something missing. While I do believe that language is language and something of this dialect could be interpreted to mean something more formal, I don’t believe that this particular point is always the case. Including “like,” “um,” and “you know” while speaking can be involuntary at times and just a force of habit, not necessarily an effort to get across extra information or consciously communicate something.
Reply
Kyrah Rodriguez
7/30/2018 02:02:10 pm
In Adam Gopnik’s “The Conscientious of Kidspeak,” he describes commonly used words by girls and teens such as “like,” “you know,” “so,” and “I mean” as discourse markers. Gopnik’s perspective on kidspeak and these discourse markers is actually positive. He believes that people who often use these discourse markers are, “people who are more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings.” He also states that discourse markers are “far from being opaque, automatic, or zombie-like.” I agree with Gopnik’s opinion to an extent. I believe that everyone uses discourse markers at some point and that they are extremely common. I also agree with Gopnik in his idea that the people who use them are more aware of their surroundings. For example, if someone asked you to explain a concept to them that you know every minuscule detail about, you would simplify it for them so they could easily understand it. In that case, you would use discourse markers. On the other hand, I disagree with Gopnik’s idea that these words aren’t “automatic” or “zombie-like.” Children feel more comfortable using these words, but almost too comfortable. I believe that they would rather constantly simplify things than explain them into depth, so they end up being stuck in a cycle of constantly using the words “like” or “I mean” or any other discourse markers.
Reply
Natalie Martinson
7/30/2018 07:58:55 pm
In his article, “The conscientious of Kidspeak,” Adam Gopnik evaluates the use of discourse markers in everyday language. Discourse markers are words, such as “like” and “um.” He argues the point that the use of discourse markers demonstrates a person who is more conscientious of their surroundings. Gopnik explains that those who tend to overuse discourse markers are usually people who are “more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings.” I believe this assertion to be false. In my personal experience, whenever I have used discourse markers, it wasn’t to be more thoughtful of others, it was to fill in pauses and give myself time to gather what I wanted to say. I further believe that Gopnik’s theory is incorrect because, by his logic, the most contienscious people in our society are teenage girls. If the use of discourse markers demonstrates people who are more aware of their surroundings, this would mean that the population with the highest use of discourse markers were more aware of their surroundings. This means that teenage girls, who have the highest use of discourse markers, are then the most contienscious group of our society. I believe that this is false, because I think that becoming aware of your surroundings is something that people gain with time. Therefore, I believe Golnik’s theory to be false.
Reply
Luke Lencioni
7/31/2018 02:03:48 pm
Personally, I don’t agree with the points that Adam Gopnik makes in “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak”, and at the end of the article it sounds as if he just wanted to write an piece that rivaled the Times’ take on Kidspeak. He makes the point that those who use the “discourse markers” such as “like” “um” or “you know” often are actually more attuned to the detail in their speech, and the markers show their excessive attentiveness of whatever situation they may be explaining. However, (in my opinion) kidspeak is just a different dialect of the english language. In the midwest, people say “pop” instead of soda, or “ope”. The younger generation just tends to use a lot more “likes” and “um’s” because that’s what everyone who they surround themselves with uses. I don’t believe the side that Gopnik argues against, either, that kidspeak is used by dimwits with a strenuous grasp on the english language. It’s just how we speak. I don’t consider myself very thoughtful of my surroundings at all, though I use the discourse markers constantly in my speech. If someone moves to England for a year, they’ll return with an English accent. The brain tends to copy what surrounds it, and a younger brain is even more susceptible to mimicking.
Reply
Connor Hotary
7/31/2018 02:52:18 pm
In “The Conscientiousness Of Kidspeak” Adam Gopnik makes the claim that using terms such as “Like” “Um” and “Uh” really have a more Conscientious meaning. Personally I disagree with Gopnik’s statement. While at some extent I believe Gopnik has a point in that there is a deeper meaning trying to shine through with the words used, as they all are used as an attempt to explain oneself better. I believe it is a much more shallow reality when it comes to the use of these words in that they are not quite as much of a connotation as Gopnik believes. Largely the words mentioned are used in speech when the speaker is not quite sure of themselves. This unsureness is quite present in young teens and children and when these teens are around others who sound unsure, they are influenced into speaking this way. A teenager’s brain is very impressionable and much more impressionable from other teenagers. This impression is what I think truly causes the “Kidspeak” a general uncertainty in the way one speaks. This revelation, to me illuminates more about the dynamic between young people in today’s society, portraying them as very impressionable and people that struggle to think for themselves.
Reply
Sophie McQueary
7/31/2018 04:53:42 pm
In Adam Gopnik’s “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” he describes how mainly girls and younger teens use discourse markers such as “like,” “um,” “I mean,” and “you know” which I completely agree with. He explains how people who use these discourse markers are using them because they are more conscientious and aware of what they are talking about. As much as I wish I believed that, I just don’t. These discourse markers are used by the younger generations as almost a placeholder to think about what they would like to say next. Which seems as if they don’t completely know what they are talking about, because they have to think about what to say next. Which I know I personally do in conversations occasionally. I do think that Kidspeak is a problem in today’s society. When these discourse markers are used in conversations it is very distracting and sounds immature and unprofessional. So, I also disagree with the fact that Gopnik said, “We should admire, not belittle, kids who use it” because this is a problem and one that should not be admired. As these teens who use discourse markers mature and actually become more aware of what they would like to say I believe these words and phrases will work their way out of their everyday conversations.
Reply
Owen Quinn
7/31/2018 07:39:18 pm
I do not agree with Adam Gopnik’s assertion of the verbal trend. I do not think that these discourse markers means the same as the more advanced passage of English. I do agree with the idea of the discourse markers meaning an absence of the absolute truth. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes people will just throw these words in when they need a buffer to think of what they are going to say. Also, they could’ve built up the habit to say these words, but they don’t mean anything else. I myself say lots of these discourse words. I am not trying to say that “what I am saying isn’t the absolute truth of what I am saying,” I just have got into the habit of doing these things. He also says that the people that are more conscientious about themselves will use this type of language more. I don’t really agree with this as well. I believe that when people use this type of language is just correlated with people that have either built this habit into their speaking, or who use them when they cannot think about the absolute truth of what they are saying.
Reply
Winston Marcy
7/31/2018 07:49:29 pm
Adam Gopnik explains How young teens use discourse markers such as “like”, “um”, and “you know”. He believes that people who use these discourse markers are, “people who are more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings.”Although I do agree with him that young teens use these discourse markers, I do not agree with that statement. I believe that when people (including myself) use these markers, they are actually just trying to think of what they are going to say and how they should say it so it makes the most sense to the other person or people they are talking to. I believe that these are also used to eliminate that awkward moment of silence while you are thinking about what to say. So instead of just to randomly stop talking you keep talking while your thinking to keep the listener interested and not feel awkward. I also disagree with Gopnik because I think that you could also use these words to simplify what you are saying. Because when you put some of these words in front of other words it could just be to broaden out what you are describing. But depending on how you use them they could be used for many different things.
Reply
Keera Lung
7/31/2018 09:57:20 pm
The article “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak” by Adam Gopnik greatly sparked my interest as I’ve never once heard an adult speak or write positively about the slang commonly used by the younger generation. Words used in the everyday vocabulary of today’s youth such as “like,” “um,” and “you know” tend to be looked down upon by society, but Gopnik looks at it from a different standpoint, instead referring to such language as “discourse markers.” In the article, Gopnik argues that the use of discourse markers is most common among conscientious people, therefore those who commonly use discourse language have “an innate sense of conscientiousness and empathy with the listener forbids the speaker from pretending to a more closely tuned accuracy than she in fact possesses.” While this perspective is definitely intriguing, I can’t help but stand with the more conventional side of the topic. I personally have heard every type of person continuously employ discourse markers within every sort of conversation. Such experiences lead me to believe that discourse language is not something that characterizes a person as being conscientious, but instead reflects the ineffective habits of today’s society. For the most part, I believe the use of “like,” “um,” and other ticks are a force of habit that have wedged themselves into the dialect of the people of today, not a way to “supply the information that there is a lot more information not being offered,” as Gopnik states.
Reply
Kasey Losik
8/16/2018 08:26:37 pm
Reply
Madie Dedic
8/26/2018 07:52:44 pm
In “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” Adam Gopnik argues that the use of words and phrases “like”, “whatever”, “you know?” and “I mean” actually show signs of intelligence, and should not be looked down upon anymore. I am not sure if I agree with him or not. I agree with the fact that the people who use these “discourse markers” are intelligent. I don’t think everyone that says “like” before everything is not intelligent. I do however disagree with the fact that using “discourse markers” makes you more intelligent than people who do not. I am guilty of using “discourse markers” myself, as everyone probably is. I do however think that some proper English is necessary. If you walked into a job interview speaking kidspeak, your chances of getting that job might be very slim. If you wrote with kidspeak on the ACT or SAT, your scores would not be very high at all. If you met your idol and spoke in kidspeak, they might not be very impressed with you the way you are with them. I think that some kidspeak is normal and should not be looked down upon, but too much pushing the line of intelligence, respect, and how to act in everyday life as a young adult.
Reply
Elise LeClaire
8/27/2018 09:08:30 am
Reply
Jillian Johnson
8/27/2018 11:43:34 am
In “The Conscientious of Kidspeak” by Adam Gopnik, Gopnik sheds a positive light on a “language” that is more commonly thought of as annoying and improper, kidspeak. Kidspeak is overusing worlds called “discourse markers” for example, “like” “you know” and “um.” This article takes a different approach than expected and tries to show the readers that people, most likely teenage girls, who use this dialect are actually conscientious and very aware of their surroundings and life. He backs this idea up by saying that all those “likes” and “you knows” are being used to show that they are summarizing the story and there are more details being left out. I have never looked at it in that way and this article really changes my perspective on kidspeak. I know in my everyday life I try to make a conscious effort to exclude those “discourse markers” from my vocabulary as much as I can. As an attempt to sound more educated, especially when talking to adults. I always was told that you should take those out as much as possible. When I was told I had to write a speech for my last years English class, we were told that we would lose points for every one of those “discourse markers.” While I do agree that they can be annoying and are not really necessary with what you are saying, I now have a new perspective on them. The intention, even if the speaker does not know it, is a good one. It is to show that there are more details to be told. People who use those filler words are more aware of their surroundings and the people and life around them. This article also shows that children especially teenage girls are more in tune with what they are saying and doing than what adults give them them credit for.
Reply
Corey Gorgas
8/28/2018 04:56:01 pm
In the article “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak” on The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik argues that discourse markers, such as “like,” “um,” “you know,” etc…, do not disqualify people from being conscientious speakers. He states that these 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 believe that there are definitely two sides to this argument. On one hand, I can see how most people would be able to fully understand someone who uses “kidspeak” or “discourse markers,” thus meaning their speech should be respected the same as any other. On the other hand, I can see the use and benefit of more educated, intellectual, and thoughtful speech that brings out better vocabulary. I guess if the situation calls for it, kidspeak can be okay given that it may get the message across just as well as more thoughtful speech would. I do think, however, that talking in kidspeak is a bad habit to get into, as the language is extremely unprofessional. Teens who talk like this may find themselves getting into trouble when it comes time for a job interview years down the road.
Reply
Aedan Kelley
8/28/2018 09:31:53 pm
In Adam Gopnik’s “The Conscientious of Kidspeak,” he explains the use of words such as “like”, “so”, “um”, “you mean”. He believes that people who use these words are more “conscientious” people. He says that those “likes” are used to point out each details. He explains that instead of looking down on people for using sloppy grammar, and english by speaking “Kidspeak”, we should instead congratulate then because it shows that they are provided you with all the details and information. I can understand what Gopnik is saying, but I disagree with him, in the fact that “Kidspeak” is a positive aspect to english. As a get older and more mature I hear people use discourage markers and they stick out in there speech, and sound sloppy and unprofessional. If you ever went into a job interview using kidspeak, you most definitely will not get the job because it gives off a unprofessional, uneducated vibe. I personally believe that it is very unprofessional, and sounds like a teenage girl, as Gopnik explains. Overall I think that Kidspeak should always be avoided when you are talking in a professional setting due to the fact that it makes the speaker sound very unprofessional, even if scientific research has shown it means the person is more “conscientious”.
Reply
Connor Seifert
8/30/2018 07:49:49 am
In the article "The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak" Adam Gopnik explains how he believes kids use words such as "like' and "um" along with others. Gopnik states that people who use this type of speaking are just as conscientious as other people who do not use these words when they are speaking. Personally I do not agree with him because to me when I hear someone constantly using the word "like" and saying "um" in the middle of their sentences it doesn't sound correct. Also I personally think that it is somewhat annoying when people are constantly using those words in the middle of their sentences. You are adding words that are not needed in the sentence. I understand that everyone does it at times and it is fine I think when you are talking normally to someone but there are times where you should be more professional when speaking, such as when you are giving a presentation in class. In conclusion I think that it is okay to use these words in sentences in casual settings but when using them in a professional setting you are not more conscientious than other people if you are using them like you would around your close friends casually.
Reply
Jetal Patel
8/30/2018 11:45:39 am
In the article, “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” Adam Gopnik he argues that the use discourse markers such as “like,” and “um” indicates that the speaker is conscientious and very aware of their surroundings and life. Kidspeak is commonly thought of as an improper and unintelligent use of expressing an individual's thoughts. Gopnik states 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.” I, personally, disagree with this statement because people who avoid using such words, tend to sound more intellectual than people who do. Also, they are usually more prepared and have their thoughts all together to express. Although I am guilty of using these discourse markers, I only use it when I have a difficulty of expressing my thoughts. More often than not, I typically see people use Kidspeak when they are unprepared and nervous to speak. I believe that individuals often use discourse markers to think about how they are going to express their ideas rather than showing that they are aware of their surroundings. I don’t agree with this article; however, I was very interested in reading Gopnik’s argumentation.
Reply
Destiny
8/30/2018 12:39:56 pm
Reply
Nicole Dukic
8/30/2018 07:08:16 pm
In “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak”, Adam Gopnik disscuses the verbal trend that is the words “um”, “uh”, “like”, “I mean”, and “you know”. He calls “you know”, “I mean”, and “like” discourse markers and “um” and “uh” fillers. To him he sees these words as fillers. So if someone were to say the word “like” in a sentence it is a sign that there is missing information. We are trying to get out a lot of information in a short amount of time and that is why we use those words. I don’t necessarily agree with that simply because I have a habit of using the word “like” a lot and I think that it is a matter of trying to get out a lot of words in a short amount of time but also being lazy and not wanting to think about the proper words to express the correct detail you want to get across. But that’s not to say that there are not smart people in this world who are not being lazy and just say those words. I also disagree when it mentions that girls use these words more than guys. Personally I hear guys use these words just as much as girls if not even more. In conclusion, I don’t agree with the verbal trends that Adam Gopnik discusses.
Reply
abby hartgerink
8/31/2018 06:25:15 am
In the article “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak” the author, Adam Gopnik, explains girls and teens use of the words “like”, “so”, “um” and “well”. He describes these as discourse markers. Gopnik describes in this article that he thinks people who use these words have a more “conscientious” personality. Gopnik went into more detail saying “people who are more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings” use these words. I personally don’t agree with this verbal trend. I feel these words are used in a time of awkwardness and not knowing what to say. They are more of a filler in sentences. I personally tend to use these words when i’m nervous or when I don’t know how to explain something very well. For example when I first started working this summer I used these words several times on accident. I was talked to many strangers and would sometimes get caught up in my words. I realized from my coworkers that saying “um” “so” and “like” make me sound less intelligent and seem like I don’t know what i’m talking about. Gopnik said “we should admire, not belittle, kids who use it.” I don’t agree with this statement. Kids and even teens who use these words appear to be less intelligent. Yes, using “um” can somewhat be a stutter that is a habit kids can easily break, but using “like” can be fixed. I sometimes find myself saying “like” too often, and I know from friends that using that word too much doesn’t sound good at all.
Reply
Samuel Beckman
8/31/2018 09:37:54 am
In the article "The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak" Adam Gopnik talks about how teens use words such as "like", "so", "um", and "you know" as part of their everyday conversation. He calls theses words discourse markers and he classifies them as fillers for conversation. He argues that people that use these discourse markers are more conscientious. I personally agree with this as sometimes people who do this are often trying to explain something and don't know how to word it. I also think this is accurate because I talk like this when I am the one that knows what is going on and people are asking me questions. Furthermore, if you are asking someone how to do something they often will talk with "Kidspeak" because they are thinking on how to instruct you in the best way possible.
Reply
Knole Ihle
8/31/2018 09:58:29 am
In the article "Conscientiousness of Kidspeak" by Adam Gopnik, he conveys how more and more kids are starting to utilize less of the english language, and start using more simpler words for people to understand better. For example, kids are using "like", "um", and "you know". Gopnik describes these phrases as "fillers" or words you say when you really don't know what to say. Gorpnik says that "The ubiquitous qualifiers in this dialect—the constant “um”s, the continual “you know”s, and, above all, the unending stream of “like”s—are, it’s usually said, a barrier in the way of lucidity, brevity, and making a point." This basically means that all of these words that kids use as "fillers" are getting in the way of clear sentences, and actually understanding what people are saying to the full extent. Funnily enough, he goes on to praise these kids, saying that "We should admire, not belittle, kids who use it." I disagree with this statement entirely. If kids keep using "fillers" in sentences, it can be said that some kids who struggle to speak use fillers so much that the person listening to that person speak cannot even understand what the person is trying to say through all of the "um's" and "likes". I know a kid like that, and sometimes I have to ask him/her to repeat what they are trying to say, or take an extra 15 seconds to figure out what he/she said. In my opinion, if you use these fillers constantly, then it makes you seem less intelligent than you actually are, because the person cannot understand what you are trying to say.
Reply
Wesley Quartermaine
8/31/2018 12:01:07 pm
Reply
Hannah Driy
8/31/2018 01:44:09 pm
In " The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak", Adam Gopnik explains that many kids and teens utilize discourse markers such as "like", "you know" and "you know" as well as fillers like "um" and "uh." He makes interesting point that people who speak in this sort of "kidspeak" are actually more conscientious and aware. In fact, Gopnik states that discourse marker "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 tend to disagree with his opinion. Most of the time when people use discourse markers and fillers, they come off sounding less intelligent and like they don't know what they are talking about. It is the people who avoid using those types of words that come off sounding intelligent. I also tend to think that "kidspeak" is a product of the times, it has developed as people get lazier. To me, it sounds like people are just getting lazy and use such words because they are not focused on what they are trying to say.
Reply
Samantha Hanson
8/31/2018 04:13:42 pm
In “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” by Adam Gopnik talks about how kids use discourse markers such as, “um,” “like,” and “you know.” Three sociolinguists at the University of Texas at Austin studied these words and it all difriates with age and gender as well as personality traits. They conducted an interview with a few people and saw that most of these so called “discourse markers” were used mainly by women and children. The discourse markers are also commonly used by “conscientious” people. The best explanation for this is that, “conscientious people are generally more thoughtful and aware of themselves and their surroundings.” Gopnik makes a great point when he talks about how instead of belittling these kinds of words, we should admire them. “A headline in the Times, to be so, might read: “scalia, like, says that Obama, is, you know? like, not cool, but, o.k., do it. whatever.” If the people at the Times wanted to run a truly conscientious newspaper, anyway, they would,” Gopnik states. He makes a valid statement here. If Times wanted a real paper, they would do something like this.
Reply
Lauren Hale
8/31/2018 04:36:40 pm
In “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” Adam Gopnik explains how terms such as “like” and “um” could really have more of a meaning than most people give them credit for. Throughout my life I’ve always heard adults warn not to use discourse markers as they lesson the meaning of what the speaker has to say. These discourse markers are also used in movies when a film writer is trying to portray a “dumb” character. Gopnik’s view on this topic sparked some interesting thoughts in my mind. When I think back to all the times I use “like” or “um” in my everyday life, I realize that I use them most when I am excited. In otherwords, I use them when I have so many thoughts in my head that I struggle to pick out what to say next. I also understand Gopnik’s claims that women use discourse markers more often than men, because I feel like men often have a one-track mind while women’s minds seem to run in all directions at once. I would love to see more research on this topic. Overall, I agree with Gopnik and I find it interesting that simple sounds could have much more meaning than most people think.
Reply
Katie Kozub
8/31/2018 05:34:28 pm
In “The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak,” Adam Gopnik shares his belief that discourse markers are used by speakers who are more thoughtful and conscientious. Gopnik believes that frequent discourse markers such as “um,” “like,” and “you know” used by teens today actually signifies intelligence. Many people are unaware that they use these discourse markers because it has just been added into their speech pattern. However, I disagree with his assertion of this verbal trend. Though I don't agree with his opinion, I found it interesting to see this point of view as I have never thought that using these markers would characterize someone as conscientious.
Reply
Austin Heer
9/24/2018 06:41:54 am
In "The Conscientiousness of Kidspeak," Adam Gopnik claims that teenagers and children use discourse markers like "like" and "um" and "you know" in order to, "supply the information that there is a lot more information not being offered, and that the whole thing is held at a certain circumspect remove." Three sociolinguists at the University of Texas in Austin performed a test to see how the discourse markers varied between gender and age. The three common discourse markers they used were, "'I mean', 'you know', and 'like,'" and they used, "'uh' and 'um'" as two filled pauses. They came to the conclusion that teenage girls use them the most, and I'd have to say that makes a lot of sense to me, because I notice girls using them more than boys. Can't really say I'm surprised, and I like how they found out there was an actual reason as to why we use discourse markers and pauses the way we do. Gopnik says that we should, "admire, not belittle, kids who use (kidspeak)," because the kids are truly conscientious when it comes to their kidspeak.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMr. Shaw Archives
July 2018
Categories |