just minishorts.

A professor once tried very hard to impress upon us that true researchers live and breathe research. And when it comes to researching language, we've got to soak ourselves in the sea of communications.

'It's like catching butterflies,' she said. 'We should be holding nets all the time, ready to catch these little bits of living language as they fleet into the atmosphere around us… you'll never know what gems will fall into your nets. As linguists, discourse analysts, we're like that. Butterfly-catchers.'

I've been surrounded by butterflies all this while, and I've been quite a resourceful butterfly-catcher myself. As communicational slips fall into my territory, I've been collecting and storing them up like they're precious diamonds… and then I scrutinize them unconsciously. I have conversations with myself (oh, but isn't this all too evident?) and I often interact with my butterfly collection.

So in this exercise of collecting butterflies, I have come to the point where I suddenly realize that I am a prime example of a 'rule-violator'. In studying discourse, Grice's Cooperative Principle is like the #1 commandment… Right, actually, I don't exactly violate all its rules. At least, I obey the first rule at all time: I speak the truth?close friends have commented that I'm too bloody direct and honest, PY once told me, 'You've got to learn how to rephrase your words so that they're not so direct and hurtful.'

But there are three more maxims which I hardly adhere to. I don't ever supply 'just enough' information. It's always 'too much'. Then the other irony is, even though I am normally direct and honest on speaking my mind, there are always occasions where my utterances turn out ambiguous. I suspect it's because in real life normal people aren't too direct, hence they expect me to be ambiguous, and yet what I say sounds so freaking direct that instead it confuses people? This is possible right?

More importantly, I violate Rule #2 ALL THE TIME. My responses are always, always against the Rule of Relation, which states that a response ought to be relevant to the topic of discussion. 'Be relevant,' says the Gricean principle. Na-ah. I'm ALWAYS incoherent… I listen to you, while I absorb the topic of discussion, and think of something to say, I'll just switch to something completely unrelated.

I suppose it puts people off.

It sure as hell isn't a way to flirt! What does it imply? Not that I don't realize that switching topics suggest disinterest… but I can't help it. Let's see. Once someone was talking to me about opening a door and how to get about doing it (a guy of course, and now that I think of it, he was probably trying to cook up a conversation), and I spoke to him about it for a while, and suddenly started to talk about how noisy the dogs were.

Another time, a friend (another guy) was trying to be fun and flirty, I remember the topic was about a tiramisu recipe and how one can make the best tiramisu and as the conversation was going to enter the point of maybe-one-day-i-can-teach-u-how-to-make-it, I proceeded to switch the topic to some horribly obscure discussion about Greek vs Chinese myths.

Actually this tendency to switch topics usually occurs when I get cold feet with someone I am extremely fond of. Is it an act of self-defense? Could it be that I'm so comfortable with the present state of things, that possible attempts at bringing things to another level causes me to freeze up? Could it also be, that I'm so fearful of saying the wrong things, that I decide to switch topics…?

So what happens? How come I do have bull's eye occasions, where I actually hit the nail on the spot?

You know? I think my intuition has got a pretty important role in all these human-relationship things that I always get entangled in. I get a gut feeling and when it overpowers me, I grab it by the neck and shake it until the truth blurts out. And what I do get?

'Yes, yes. That's what I want.'

What happens, if THAT is what you want, but you can't do anything else about it, except want it… ?

She'll end up posting something like this.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.