In the Introduction to Linguistics class last week, Professor Ivanoff asked if the students had any questions about the material he had just discussed in his lecture. The preceding lecture covered marked words (words that clearly define or describe only one object). A student who seemed confused asked Professor Ivanoff how the use of marked words was connected to our study of Linguistics.

A student said, "Everyone knows that when you say table, a table is something with four legs and a flat surface. So table is a marked word. In a sense we already knew that because we don't go around calling everything a table." The student asked, "Is this just a definition or will it be explained further at a later time?"

"I do not understand why you are asking such a question," Professor Ivanoff said. "I just explained to you what marked and unmarked words are. Why do you ask such a question?"

"I am just wondering why you told us about marked words. How is it important in our study?" the student asked.

"I explained it to you. There are marked words and there are unmarked words. Marked words describe definite things. Unmarked words are words that can be used to define more than one thing,

If dialogue were present in the classroom structure students and professors would be able to interact fairly and in a respectful manner of each other. Dialogue would make the learning experience for the students more comfortable and the job of the professor more rewarding. Conversational Narcissism, as we have seen, hinders that process of dialogue and should be eliminated from the student-professor relationship.

By examining the four criteria of a dialogue, two-way flow, suitable topic, a spirit of fairness, and courage, and examining the conversation taken place in Professor Ivanoff's classroom, one can see that what took place cannot be a dialogue. Professor Ivanoff did not allow the two-way flow to be constant. He did not listen to the student's question or attempt to answer them. The two-way flow was disrupted when Professor Ivanoff interrupted the student. The topic also is one that neither has a right or wrong answer. To different professors the answer to the student's question may be different. The answer would depend on the objective of the course. A spirit of fairness was not present either. When the professor felt attacked, he would not listen to the student or answer her question. He did not have the mind set "That there is a possibility that the student is right and she is not attacking me." Perhaps being a professor, and one of higher rank than that of the student is why the professor was not willing to put his self-identity on the line. He became angry when he felt his sense of self attacked.

Unknowingly Professor Iva

Some common words found in the essay are:
Professor Ivanoff, Conversational Narcissism, professor ivanoff, conversational narcissism, marked words, two-way flow, Introduction Linguistics, spirit fairness, Professor Ivanoff's, student's question, answer question, unmarked words, shift response, question professor ivanoff, spirit fairness professor, words words define, question authority, answer student's question, professor ivanoff interrupted,
Approximate Word count = 1051
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)