#1 – Option A: Language Conventions

According to Clark, a convention arises out of the need for a community to solve a “recurrent coordination problem”, such as businessmen coming up with a time for weekly meetings. In order for something to be a convention, it has to be 1. a regularity, 2. somewhat arbitrary, 3. be a common ground, 4. a coordination device, and 5. used to solve a recurrent coordination problem. Language, too, is a convention, argues Clark, in that it has the five characteristics listed. Specifically, he introduces the notion of signaling doublets, which are pairs of conditional statements that are conventional. Furthermore, Clark breaks down the different forms that language conventions might take on into four categories—lexical entries, grammatical rules, convention of use, and conventions of perspective.

The example of a language convention that I will use comes from a subcategory of lexical entries—idioms. For example, everyone knows that if one is “caught red-handed”, it means that they’ve been caught in the act of a crime. The fact that everyone knows this makes it a regularity. It is somewhat arbitrary because of historical significance. Had history happened differently, this idiom might not even exist, or, for all we know, “saw green-footed” could have meant the same thing. Thirdly, it’s a common good because it’s common knowledge—everyone understands it. Fourthly, it’s a coordination device in that it is a “mutually recognized key” in people’s understanding of it. And lastly, it can solve the recurrent problem of having to say “I caught him in the act of committing that crime” by shortening it to “I caught him red-handed.”

In the recent decades, the rise of technology has introduced interesting conventions related to technological settings. For example, “brb” is an acronym for “be right back”, often used in instant messaging. This convention supports Clark’s model under the condition that both partners are aware of how long one member will be away for and how long the other will have to wait. Once again, it’s regularity because everyone uses it and understands it. It’s arbitrary because it could have been “rb”, or something else completely. It’s common ground within the teenage to the working adult population because it’s shared information that “brb” stands for “be right back”. It's evolvement into a coordination device occurred because it’s the “key” to solving the recurrent coordination problem (criterion five) of not having enough time to type out “I’ll be right back” or something similar. Especially crucial is that, since there’s no immediacy in online chatting, the speaker has to find a quick way to let the addressee know that he/she won’t be able to respond to whoever he/she is talking to for a short amount of time for whatever reason. This way, there’s no miscommunication. When “brb” is sent, the addressee immediately knows not to expect a reply for a short time.

However, the difference in the interpretation of “be right back” can pose a potential problem. How long is the speaker going to be away when they say “be right back”? Thirty seconds? Five minutes? Or an hour? Most people probably take “be right back” to mean a couple of minutes at most. However, some people might interpret it to be longer. Or, sometimes, the situation at hand dictates that the speaker be away for a longer-than-expected time. If an explicit agreement or another coordination device between the two chatting partners is not established, then miscommunication and discoordination might result, making the addressee confused, and even frustrated, or worse, angry. In this case, then, the acronym would be an ineffective coordination device, and thus fail as a language convention in that it didn’t completely solve the recurrent coordination problem of not having enough time write out and explain to the addressee that some situation has occurred at his end and that he’ll have to “be right back”.