Laura’s topic is, in terms of medium, closest to mine, and yet we’re exploring two very different phenomena. I greatly appreciated the insight from Baym with regard to repetition in the creation of internet humor and solidarity. The idea of the way that humor is an interstice in a text that is ostensibly about something else (for example, the daily show summaries) I think has a lot of value for my own research—much of what I’m looking at has a great deal to do with the ways in which individuals add their own voice to the text at hand.
I thought, too, that Laura’s request for us to reexamine Becker was a good one. Much of what happens in internet discourse is about repetition—what gets repeated and what does not, as well as what is picked up as relevant to the conversation and what stances are taken towards that information. Repetition has a lot to do with the creation of meaning on the internet.
Most interesting about Laura’s data were the ways meaning was being created out of very, very little. For example, the wall posts about Michael Moore might have been taken in a completely different way had the person not have been a conservative. I also was fascinated by the transformation of the word “Sicko” from a movie title to a possible reference to Moore himself. The ways in which single turns like that can be manipulated is a really fruitful area to look at on Facebook, and it seems like that is an area Laura is beginning to cue into in her analysis.
One of the things I wanted to know more about in Laura’s presentation was the way intertextuality functions in the socialization of these older FB users. I wasn’t completely clear on that, and I didn’t entirely get that reverse socialization out of the data we looked at (although we eschewed an entire set of data, so that may be why). I have a feeling much of this socialization happens in the responding to texts, for example, the example Laura gave of people going, “There’s a button for that” to someone who simply replies “I like this” to a post. I would be very interested to see some of that in action.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sam's Workshop
One of the things I thought was a most interesting point brought up by Sam’s readings was the concept of “ownership” as it applies to health information. This was brought up in the Hardey reading, and yet I feel has a lot to do with what Sam is looking at in the birth control commercials. The question of who “owns” the medical information that was presented has a lot to do with how the information in the commercials is presented—do we view the speaker presenting the risks and benefits of the drug as something that an average person should have in her purview? I found that to be a very interesting question as we examined Sam’s data.
I was also particularly struck by the ways in which the data that Sam presented really did represent the “postmodern” commercial, or perhaps a mix of the modern and postmodern. Although much explicit information was given in the commercials (as was necessary per FDA standards), much information relied on other connections we could make, often intertextual ties to our understanding of women’s history, what a birth control pill pack looks like, what women’s bathing attire indexes, etc. The goal of the commercial was not entirely to sell us on the benefits of the product but rather to sell us on a particular feeling that we ought to have about the product—that it makes us freer, sexier, more modern, etc. (Incidentally, it was also very interesting given Pat’s presentation, to go back to the kinds of ideologies about manhood that his focus texts evoke.) I think the way these themes play out, in accordance with the kinds of ideas that Proctor put forth, might be a really interesting spot of exploration for Sam. I was very intrigued by the ways the two sets of commercials “talk back” to each other, and exploring the ways the talking back incorporates some of these concepts of how we’re meant to “feel’ could be very useful (for example, the correction Yaz commercial still uses the same actress in the same swanky bar instead of say, a doctor in a lab coat).
Connecting the concepts back to my own work; I think probably the most interesting piece I came across in Sam’s workshop were some of the ideas about ownership that Hardey explored. This concept of the internet making knowledge more communal, and knowledge being weighed not against its validity but against the availability of other knowledge, is one I think is particularly useful to my own work. WK to some degree deals with the question of whether one person’s reading of a particular text is valid vis a vis anothers’, and much of this has to do with the presence or absence of both opinions and the prevalence of one versus another. So I think some of the same things apply, e.g. people growing skeptical of skewed information because there simply is a lack of volume.
I was also particularly struck by the ways in which the data that Sam presented really did represent the “postmodern” commercial, or perhaps a mix of the modern and postmodern. Although much explicit information was given in the commercials (as was necessary per FDA standards), much information relied on other connections we could make, often intertextual ties to our understanding of women’s history, what a birth control pill pack looks like, what women’s bathing attire indexes, etc. The goal of the commercial was not entirely to sell us on the benefits of the product but rather to sell us on a particular feeling that we ought to have about the product—that it makes us freer, sexier, more modern, etc. (Incidentally, it was also very interesting given Pat’s presentation, to go back to the kinds of ideologies about manhood that his focus texts evoke.) I think the way these themes play out, in accordance with the kinds of ideas that Proctor put forth, might be a really interesting spot of exploration for Sam. I was very intrigued by the ways the two sets of commercials “talk back” to each other, and exploring the ways the talking back incorporates some of these concepts of how we’re meant to “feel’ could be very useful (for example, the correction Yaz commercial still uses the same actress in the same swanky bar instead of say, a doctor in a lab coat).
Connecting the concepts back to my own work; I think probably the most interesting piece I came across in Sam’s workshop were some of the ideas about ownership that Hardey explored. This concept of the internet making knowledge more communal, and knowledge being weighed not against its validity but against the availability of other knowledge, is one I think is particularly useful to my own work. WK to some degree deals with the question of whether one person’s reading of a particular text is valid vis a vis anothers’, and much of this has to do with the presence or absence of both opinions and the prevalence of one versus another. So I think some of the same things apply, e.g. people growing skeptical of skewed information because there simply is a lack of volume.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Pat's Workshop
Pat’s topic is quite interesting to me from the standpoint of using a really very subtle intertext. I didn’t expect to be using such a subtle intertext myself; my original thought was simply to examine message board speech precisely because the intertext is usually so overt. Yet I’ve found that what I’ve ended up looking at is very subtle.
Were I to watch Pat’s Ford commercials, I would likely not recognize the “Dirty Jobs” intertext at all, as I’ve never seen the show and certainly don’t recognize its host. Yet at the same time, I would undoubtedly recognize the ideologies of masculinity and strength and the personification of those ideologies onto a machine. I thought this was perhaps one of the more useful connections of Pat’s workshop for me; thinking about how to pick apart an intertext and to see different intertexts based on what one has experience with. In my own work, much comes from people understanding a situation in the same way, or understanding that a certain set of behaviors constitutes a white-knighting frame in the same way that Anna Trester’s improv artists could recognize a set of behaviors as a game frame. Pat’s focus texts helped me think about how an intertext could be recognized with very little, and also how people with different experiences might cue in to different intertexts.
The readings Pat chose I thought were complementary. Irvine and Gal emphasized a great deal about group formation, and very importantly, intragroup diversity. Thinking about how we might hegemonically assign characteristics to single groups is an interesting thought, especially when it comes to understanding their linguistic practice. I find these concepts to speak back to Ana’s work on linguistic metadiscourse, and wonder if that might not be a good area of exploration for her as well. I was intrigued by Actor Network Theory, and it seems that Latour and Irvine and Gal are saying a great deal of the same things about the ways networks and groups are created intrinsically and must be understood as such to understand how different pieces of their worlds can carry meaning. One spot I thought about particularly was the concept of certain features being mapped on to social qualities, a la the nylon vs. silk example that Latour gives. This could be brought to bear on some of Pat’s work—we already have many of the ideologies of what it is to be masculine, and the way they do or don’t get
The one thing I was surprised was missing from Pat’s workshop was more information about Dirty Jobs itself. There was a LOT to work with simply exploring the intertextual ties between the commercials themselves, but I found I wanted to know more about the Dirty Jobs intertext and the way in which it played into or didn’t play into the focus texts. However, I found the process of identifying the actors and intermediaries in each was a very good method of analysis for Pat’s work.
Were I to watch Pat’s Ford commercials, I would likely not recognize the “Dirty Jobs” intertext at all, as I’ve never seen the show and certainly don’t recognize its host. Yet at the same time, I would undoubtedly recognize the ideologies of masculinity and strength and the personification of those ideologies onto a machine. I thought this was perhaps one of the more useful connections of Pat’s workshop for me; thinking about how to pick apart an intertext and to see different intertexts based on what one has experience with. In my own work, much comes from people understanding a situation in the same way, or understanding that a certain set of behaviors constitutes a white-knighting frame in the same way that Anna Trester’s improv artists could recognize a set of behaviors as a game frame. Pat’s focus texts helped me think about how an intertext could be recognized with very little, and also how people with different experiences might cue in to different intertexts.
The readings Pat chose I thought were complementary. Irvine and Gal emphasized a great deal about group formation, and very importantly, intragroup diversity. Thinking about how we might hegemonically assign characteristics to single groups is an interesting thought, especially when it comes to understanding their linguistic practice. I find these concepts to speak back to Ana’s work on linguistic metadiscourse, and wonder if that might not be a good area of exploration for her as well. I was intrigued by Actor Network Theory, and it seems that Latour and Irvine and Gal are saying a great deal of the same things about the ways networks and groups are created intrinsically and must be understood as such to understand how different pieces of their worlds can carry meaning. One spot I thought about particularly was the concept of certain features being mapped on to social qualities, a la the nylon vs. silk example that Latour gives. This could be brought to bear on some of Pat’s work—we already have many of the ideologies of what it is to be masculine, and the way they do or don’t get
The one thing I was surprised was missing from Pat’s workshop was more information about Dirty Jobs itself. There was a LOT to work with simply exploring the intertextual ties between the commercials themselves, but I found I wanted to know more about the Dirty Jobs intertext and the way in which it played into or didn’t play into the focus texts. However, I found the process of identifying the actors and intermediaries in each was a very good method of analysis for Pat’s work.
Corinne's Workshop
I found Corinne’s workshop to be strangely one of the more useful ones for my own work, perhaps because we are both working with such distinctly written media. The definitions that Thetela and Porter put forth for intertextuality itself I found particularly useful, especially Porter’s concept that intertextuality consists of both tierability and presupposition. Iterability of course takes us right back to Johnstone and Becker—the way a text becomes a second text by virtue of its repetition. And then there is presupposition, which to me brings back some of the ideas of an intertext anticipating other texts. Presupposition reminds us that the text is always speaking to other texts, responding to other texts, and positioning itself relative to other texts. I find this concept very useful in my own research. I was also more than a little interested in Thetela’s discussion of relational processes arising out of intertextual relationships, as I think this is something that is going on in my own data quite a bit.
One of the things I found most interesting about Corinne’s workshop was the use or lack of use of quotes. I found it fascinating to follow the trajectory of the quotes that were put forth in the original article and the ways in which they resurfaced in subsequent discussions of the same material. (I thought Corinne made a great choice in doing her model analysis on the first article and letting us navigate our way through the subsequent ones.) The discussion of when something gets quoted, even to the extent that “nonissue” was not put in quotes in a headline, I thought was a very fruitful one, and brings back many of the ideas that both Sclafani and Tannen put forth about double-voiced discourse.
I was interested as well in the way Thetela discussed the stance creation in her text, and I thought this would be a very useful area for Corinne. Obviously the ways these texts are quoted or not quoted create certain alliances between the text and the reader, encouraging the reader to side or not to side with a particular point of view. This is very prevalent in a discussion such as the one Corinne is reading, and obviously, each piece we looked at took this stance creation to a different degree.
The one part of Corinne’s workshop I would’ve liked to see more of were any sort of opposing viewpoints. Particularly with regard to what I mention above about stance creation on the part of the audience, it would be interesting to see how similar quotes are used to encourage people to take a different stance than the one originally presented by the SF Chronicle.
One of the things I found most interesting about Corinne’s workshop was the use or lack of use of quotes. I found it fascinating to follow the trajectory of the quotes that were put forth in the original article and the ways in which they resurfaced in subsequent discussions of the same material. (I thought Corinne made a great choice in doing her model analysis on the first article and letting us navigate our way through the subsequent ones.) The discussion of when something gets quoted, even to the extent that “nonissue” was not put in quotes in a headline, I thought was a very fruitful one, and brings back many of the ideas that both Sclafani and Tannen put forth about double-voiced discourse.
I was interested as well in the way Thetela discussed the stance creation in her text, and I thought this would be a very useful area for Corinne. Obviously the ways these texts are quoted or not quoted create certain alliances between the text and the reader, encouraging the reader to side or not to side with a particular point of view. This is very prevalent in a discussion such as the one Corinne is reading, and obviously, each piece we looked at took this stance creation to a different degree.
The one part of Corinne’s workshop I would’ve liked to see more of were any sort of opposing viewpoints. Particularly with regard to what I mention above about stance creation on the part of the audience, it would be interesting to see how similar quotes are used to encourage people to take a different stance than the one originally presented by the SF Chronicle.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Marni's Presentation
I’ve always thought Marni’s question to be a very interesting one, and I was interested to see the way in which she ultimately decided to operationalize it by looking at cancer narratives. I do think that shared experience does constitute a type of prior text, especially because often shared experience often creates a distinct text within itself—I’m reminded of Tovares’s recent work on athlete narratives, when certain phrases become the norm for discussing things, like in “mile 20 is when the real race begins” is an instance of “real race” being used to describe the inner battle to finish versus the physical battle of fatigue.
Particularly interesting in Marni’s readings I thought was this use of intertextual (and intratextual in the case of Hamilton) ties in the construction of identity. The ways in which identity is co-constructed is a particular research interest of mine as I’m currently looking at audience design in the sociolinguistic interview. At the same time, Hamilton’s construction is working a little differently in that the author’s responses and interactions with the patient serve to help construct the patient’s “patient” identity, which is different from the audience and referee design theory that I’m working with.
I also find interesting Bakhtin’s notion that we are influenced by incorporating another’s words into our own discourse. This seems to me to be one of the major factors in the narratives that Marni is looking at. Although I did not get the chance to explore the narratives themselves, this question of taking on others’ words seems to me to be a prime site for understanding the ways in which intertextuality allows them to develop the identity of cancer survivors. In what ways to they adopt the “language” of cancer survival? In medical anthropology in undergrad, we often talked about how cancer is framed as a battle—the cancer battling the body and the patient battling the cancer, as though there is anything the patient can do to actually effect change on the cancer . In fact, the mere presence of all of these stories on Livestrong is to some extent an intertextual tie itself—Lance Armstrong is known for his bravery in battling his cancer and for going on to win many more races after his treatment. By positioning themselves with Livestrong, the authors of Marni’s narratives tap into the experience of Armstrong.
Most useful to me from Marni’s work is probably this idea of being influenced by the incorporation of others’ words. I believe part of WK is the taking on of a voice and a stance that others have already identified, and sometimes it is even taking on words such as “baww” or “butthurt” which shape the world of an additional interlocutor so that they understand and respond to the situation as an instance of WK instead of a different reaction they may have had otherwise.
Particularly interesting in Marni’s readings I thought was this use of intertextual (and intratextual in the case of Hamilton) ties in the construction of identity. The ways in which identity is co-constructed is a particular research interest of mine as I’m currently looking at audience design in the sociolinguistic interview. At the same time, Hamilton’s construction is working a little differently in that the author’s responses and interactions with the patient serve to help construct the patient’s “patient” identity, which is different from the audience and referee design theory that I’m working with.
I also find interesting Bakhtin’s notion that we are influenced by incorporating another’s words into our own discourse. This seems to me to be one of the major factors in the narratives that Marni is looking at. Although I did not get the chance to explore the narratives themselves, this question of taking on others’ words seems to me to be a prime site for understanding the ways in which intertextuality allows them to develop the identity of cancer survivors. In what ways to they adopt the “language” of cancer survival? In medical anthropology in undergrad, we often talked about how cancer is framed as a battle—the cancer battling the body and the patient battling the cancer, as though there is anything the patient can do to actually effect change on the cancer . In fact, the mere presence of all of these stories on Livestrong is to some extent an intertextual tie itself—Lance Armstrong is known for his bravery in battling his cancer and for going on to win many more races after his treatment. By positioning themselves with Livestrong, the authors of Marni’s narratives tap into the experience of Armstrong.
Most useful to me from Marni’s work is probably this idea of being influenced by the incorporation of others’ words. I believe part of WK is the taking on of a voice and a stance that others have already identified, and sometimes it is even taking on words such as “baww” or “butthurt” which shape the world of an additional interlocutor so that they understand and respond to the situation as an instance of WK instead of a different reaction they may have had otherwise.
Ana's Presentation
Notes on Ana’s Presentation (from readings and ppt)
Metalinguistic study has always been a rather fascinating topic for me, and so I was quite sorry to have missed this presentation in person. I think the ways in which people create solidarity or distance by talking about the ways they talk is fascinating—I always think back to the first time I saw the “I’m not having any Southern Babies” monologue in American Tongues.
I am also particularly interested in the ways in which Ana is relying on much of the same framework as I am in looking at the issues of en-, decon- and recontexualization of the instance of metalinguistic commentary. I have personally found this to be a good area of intertextuality for my own work, as the process a text moves through as it moves from one of these to the next is frequently highly visible.
I was particularly interested in Coupland and Jaworoski’s discussion of language as innocent, in the idea that it is somehow removed from the social process and ideologies in which it is embedded. One thing I think keeps being broken down in this course is the idea of language as being separate from the social situations from which it arises. It is used to create identities and to shape them, and to move ideas from one sphere into another. If language were “innocent,” the rekeying that Tannen talks about would be impossible; there would be no social connection for that language to be able to move from a discussion about the return of a box to a discussion about spousal support in hardship.
Although language ideologies do not manifest themselves in my own research and there is not much in the way of metalinguistic commentary, I think the ways in which Ana is engaging with the same framework as I am to uncover the sites of her explorations forms a useful juxtaposition to my own work
Metalinguistic study has always been a rather fascinating topic for me, and so I was quite sorry to have missed this presentation in person. I think the ways in which people create solidarity or distance by talking about the ways they talk is fascinating—I always think back to the first time I saw the “I’m not having any Southern Babies” monologue in American Tongues.
I am also particularly interested in the ways in which Ana is relying on much of the same framework as I am in looking at the issues of en-, decon- and recontexualization of the instance of metalinguistic commentary. I have personally found this to be a good area of intertextuality for my own work, as the process a text moves through as it moves from one of these to the next is frequently highly visible.
I was particularly interested in Coupland and Jaworoski’s discussion of language as innocent, in the idea that it is somehow removed from the social process and ideologies in which it is embedded. One thing I think keeps being broken down in this course is the idea of language as being separate from the social situations from which it arises. It is used to create identities and to shape them, and to move ideas from one sphere into another. If language were “innocent,” the rekeying that Tannen talks about would be impossible; there would be no social connection for that language to be able to move from a discussion about the return of a box to a discussion about spousal support in hardship.
Although language ideologies do not manifest themselves in my own research and there is not much in the way of metalinguistic commentary, I think the ways in which Ana is engaging with the same framework as I am to uncover the sites of her explorations forms a useful juxtaposition to my own work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)