Aquino, Mark Aubrey O.

1BSHM1G

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

Test 1: Identification

1. JJ – Glossophobia
2. II – Acculturation
3. HH – Memes
4. GG – Commercial Signs
5. FF – informal Language Register
6. EE – Formal Language Register
7. DD – Regional Dialect
8. P – YouTube
9. BB – Gender Sensitivity
10. H – Verbal Communication
11. R – Stereotyping
12. K – Language Varieties
13. Q – Nonverbal Communication
14. L – Pidgin
15. CC – Linguistic Landscapes
16. J – Global Community
17. N – Casual Register
18. O – Regulatory Signs
19. AA – Xenophobia
20. Z – Visual Communication
21. Y – Twitter
22. X – infrastrural Register
23. W – Intimate Register
24. T – Language Register
25. V – Frozen Register
26. U – Creole
27. S – Cultural Awareness
28. A – World of Diversity
29. I – Ethnocentrism
30. G – Transgressive Signs
31. B – Political Correctness
32. C – Geosemiotics
33. D – Minotory Dialect
34. F – Neutral Language Register
35. E – Consultative Register

Test 2: Matching Type

 36. O – To man
37. A – Forefathers
38. N - Brotherhood
39. B - Man-made
40. M – Policeman
41. C – Common Man
42. L - Man
43. D - Chairman
44. K - Mankid
45. E - Ladylike
46. J - Postman
47. F - Freshman
48. I - Congressman
49. G – Steward, Stewardess
50. H – Manpower

II – B

51. Y – Cheating

52. T – Ugly

53. O – Negro

54. J - Bald

55. E – Disabled

56. X – Drug Addict

57. S – Broken home

58. N - Poor

59. I - Old

60. D – Dishonest

61. W – Deaf

62. R – Squatters

63. M – Mental Retardation

64. H – Stupid

65. C - Midget
66. G – Fat

67. Q – Body Ordor

68. L - Homeless

69. V – A crook

70. B – Rape Victim

71. U – Perverted

72. P - Psychopath

73. K – Computer Literate

74. F – Short

75. A – Blind

Test 3: True Or False

76. False

77. False

78. False

79. True

80. True

81. False

82. True

83. False

84. True

85. True

Test IV:

Ignorin Pretendin Selective Attentive Sympathetic Empathi

g g c
86 √
. √
87 √
. √
88 √
 .
89
.
90
.

Test V:

1. Communication is defined as the two-way process of conveying and receiving information,

ideas, knowledge, feeling or attitude from a source to a recipient using certain symbols and
signs. Adler and Proctor identify five communication principles. Communication can be
intentional or unintentional, communication is irreversible, it is impossible not to
communicate and communication is unrepeatable. Communication has a content and
relational dimension. The content dimension encompasses the information being conveyed,
while the relational dimension identifies the feelings between the information sender and
recipient. Communication can be intentional or unintentional, it can be irrevocable and it is
impossible not to communicate.
2. The top-down approach sees understanding as starting from the listener's background
knowledge of the non-linguistic context and of worst down towards the individuals. Listeners
will actively interpret what they hear in terms of their understanding of the situation and the
world in general. How easy it was to understand this passage may depend on how close to the
forefront of your mind that information was. The switch to a top-down approach was a
necessary change from the exaggerated bottom-up approach which in some cases remained
current in foreign language teaching as late as the 1990s.
3. Communication is the process of understanding information through the transmittal of words,
actions, hidden messages, signals or thoughts. Effective communication enables us to resolve
differences, build trust and respect, and create environments where creative ideas, problem
solving, affection, and caring can flourish.
4. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the
development of relationships and communities. It fosters truthfulness, fairness, responsibility,
personal integrity, and respect for self and others. Ethical communication condemns
communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation,
coercion, and violence.
5. Theories of metalanguage have a long and venerable history in a number of traditions, from
logic through cognitive science. However in recent years, an exciting new approach to the
study of metalanguage - focused upon the issue of metalinguistic awareness - has emerged
from empirical research on language pragmatics and metapragmatics. This work moves
beyond an older conceptualization of metalanguage as language that talks about language,
analyzing in depth how metalanguage also creates, structures, and forms language and
ongoing speech. Speakers have varying degrees of awareness of metalanguage as it both
refers to and performatively formulates communication. At times, participants explicitly
recognize a metalinguistic level that structures their conversation. At other times the
structuring role of metalanguage may be partially or completely concealed, operating in subtle
ways of which speakers are partially or totally unaware. Even in these instances, speakers'
partial awareness - or even total misunderstanding - of metalanguage can help to shape
linguistic interaction. Understandings and misunderstandings of the role of metalanguage may
also be regularized in the form of socially-shared 'linguistic ideologies'. In this paper we
outline the implications of the new, empirically-informed approach to metalinguistic
awareness, locating this scholarship in relation to work on metalanguage from a number of
other traditions.