Week 4 — Four Words, Two Registers: Hearing the Market as Language

Assignment 4 of the term — hear the market's talk as language, weigh a famous debate about words and thought, and explain it to someone who has it wrong.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Ethnography Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together. It builds on Week 3, where you first marked the vendor's emic terms.

The task

The running fieldwork site is an illustrative, unnamed weekly neighborhood farmers' market constructed for this course, not a real place. Its illustrative vendor interview has 5 questions and 5 answers, and the vendor uses four emic terms: "regulars", "seconds", "the swap", and "the bell". In field-note entry 4, at 8:20 a.m. at the produce stall, a vendor greets a shopper with "The usual?" and bags two pounds of apples before the shopper asks; with a first-time buyer, in an illustrative contrast, the same vendor explains the produce, what seconds are, and the price. A friend hears you are studying language and says, "Words like 'seconds' and 'the swap' are lazy slang, and if you don't have a word for something, you can't even see it." Your job is to answer the way an anthropologist would, starting from a few plain numbers about the interview, the market's prices, and four dates.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. In the running fieldwork site's illustrative vendor interview, the vendor gives 5 answers, and 4 of them carry an emic term in quotation marks. What percent of the answers carry an emic term?
2. At the running fieldwork site, a bin of bruised tomatoes is marked "Seconds" at 2 dollars a pound, half the price of the display tomatoes. How many dollars a pound do the display tomatoes cost?
3. Hockett's design features appeared in 1960, and Geertz's The Interpretation of Cultures appeared in 1973. How many years after Hockett's article did Geertz's book appear?
4. Rivers described the genealogical method in 1910, and Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific appeared in 1922. How many years after Rivers's article did Malinowski's book appear?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: write the gloss for two of the four emic terms, and explain, using arbitrariness, why a newcomer to the market has to be taught them.
• Problem 2: describe the vendor's two registers, "The usual?" with a regular and the fuller explanation with a first-time buyer, and explain why the shift is a change of register, not a change of dialect or language.
• Problem 3: try both the strong form and the weak form of linguistic relativity on the word "seconds", and say which form is not supported and which has limited support.
• Problem 4: describe one setting you know, such as a bus stop, an elevator, or a crowded hallway, in two columns, observed and possible interpretation, using proxemics, with people named only by role.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your friend thinks insider words are lazy slang and that a missing word makes something impossible to see. Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains why an insider word such as "seconds" is learned and arbitrary, why every way of speaking follows rules, and why the strong form of linguistic relativity is not supported, and names one limit, including that the market is illustrative and that the weak form does have some support. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a grandparent who says texting abbreviations are ruining the language. Model answer: "Texting shorthand is a register, a style people shift into for a quick message to a friend, and the same people still write full sentences in a job application. Every way of speaking follows its own rules, and every language changes as the people who speak it live. One caveat is fair: someone who does not know the shorthand can be left out, so it fits some settings better than others."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory cultural anthropology course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about language as a cultural system: design features, register, and linguistic relativity. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a quotation, or a word, gesture, or custom of any real people or real language community, and never call any language or dialect primitive, broken, or lazy.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the running fieldwork site, an illustrative, unnamed weekly neighborhood farmers' market constructed for this course, not a real place. Its illustrative vendor interview has 5 questions and 5 answers, with four emic terms: "regulars" (buyers a vendor knows by sight and greets by their usual order), "seconds" (bruised or misshapen produce sold at a lower price), "the swap" (a vendor-to-vendor trade of goods of matched value, with no money), and "the bell" (the manager's 8:00 a.m. signal that selling may begin). In field-note entry 4, at 8:20 a.m. at the produce stall, a vendor greets a shopper with "The usual?" and bags two pounds of apples before the shopper asks; with a first-time buyer, in an illustrative contrast, the same vendor explains the produce, what seconds are, and the price. The strong form of linguistic relativity (language determines thought) is not supported; the weak form (language influences attention, sorting, and memory) has limited support.
PROBLEM P1: In the running fieldwork site's illustrative vendor interview, the vendor gives 5 answers, and 4 of them carry an emic term in quotation marks. What percent of the answers carry an emic term?
PROBLEM P2: At the running fieldwork site, a bin of bruised tomatoes is marked "Seconds" at 2 dollars a pound, half the price of the display tomatoes. How many dollars a pound do the display tomatoes cost?
PROBLEM P3: Hockett's design features appeared in 1960, and Geertz's The Interpretation of Cultures appeared in 1973. How many years after Hockett's article did Geertz's book appear?
PROBLEM P4: Rivers described the genealogical method in 1910, and Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific appeared in 1922. How many years after Rivers's article did Malinowski's book appear?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, glosses for two of the four emic terms plus why arbitrariness means a newcomer must be taught them; for P2, the vendor's two registers described plus why the shift is a change of register rather than of dialect or language; for P3, the strong and weak forms of linguistic relativity tried on "seconds", plus which form is not supported and which has limited support; for P4, a two-column note on one setting's personal-space expectation using proxemics, with roles only. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend who thinks insider words are lazy slang and that a missing word makes something impossible to see, explaining that insider words are learned and arbitrary, that every way of speaking follows rules, and that the strong form is not supported, with one limit, including that the market is illustrative and that the weak form has some support. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (40 points), anthropological reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the friend only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct emic-share, full-price, or years-between value = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing value or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a two-column note on one setting's personal-space expectation that uses proxemics AND a message to the friend that explains learned, arbitrary insider words, rule-governed speech, and why the strong form is not supported, with a named limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and a dialect called broken or lazy, the strong form treated as supported, or an invented word or gesture for a real people is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to anthropology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the friend with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled two-column sketch of the personal-space note with a short explanation; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 4 skills — explaining why insider words are arbitrary and learned, telling a register shift from a change of dialect or language, weighing the strong form of linguistic relativity against the weak form, and using proxemics to read personal space — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have about the vendors' words. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and do not let it invent a word or gesture for any real people, call a dialect broken, or state the strong form of linguistic relativity as settled fact. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com