Norrick’s work reminds me a great deal of the things that Becker discusses in his exploration of repetition. In his article, Becker explores the way in which humor can arise because of access to a shared prior text, for example, the prior text of the “how many x-es does it take to do y?” joke frame. Without access to that frame, the joke is largely lost, and a statement like, “How many Ph.D.’s does it take to find a wireless button” loses much of its punch.
At the same time, Norrick marries some of the concepts introduced by Bauman and Bauman & Briggs on Performativity with the work on repetition, in looking at the ways repetition is used to create frame breaks which allow for the punchline of the joke to emerge. However, Norrick makes an important distinction between jokes and parodic allusion. While both are performative speech events a la Bauman and Briggs, Norrick points to the idea that the joke is performative in an intrusive way—their use of intertextual reference is brief and used to challenge the audience to achieve the goal of the punchline, while the allusion that creates parody invites the audience to align with the speaker, drawing them together to joke at the expense of a third party.
It is this last element that I think may be useful to my own work—the work of WK and identifying WK is to align a number of speakers against the WK-participant, once the speech event has been entextualized as a WK event. Comparing the ways these alignments function will likely be a very useful tool to me as I go forward examining how WK functions within the discourse of the internet communities I’m studying.
Showing posts with label Bauman and Briggs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bauman and Briggs. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
En-, Decon-, Recon- Bauman & Briggs
How do we pinpoint a text as being emblematic of a text type or as performing a particular function in relationship to other texts? Bauman and Briggs unravel the process by which a text becomes first recognized as a text type through the process of entextualization, which acknowledges not only the form and function of a text but also its full context. That recognized text may then be taken out of its original context, or decontextualized, and then reinstated as a different text type, or recontextualized.
It seems to me that repetition often serves these functions; for example, in the Sloan data, it seems evident that decontexutalization and recontextualization are happening a great deal. For example, in the conversation that Tannen (2006) recounts about the package not being taken to the post office, it is evident that first the conversation, in the context of a wife leaving a husband and leaving a package that the mailman may or may not pick up, is entextualized as a question about a household chore and whether or not the husband will be willing to perform the chore if necessary. However, it is when the same discussion arises out of its original context that it becomes re-created as a different conversation entirely—a conversation about whether or not the husband will support the wife in the instance that her job becomes more stressful. As the same bit of text (the question about the box) is repeated, it goes through the stages that Bauman and Briggs identify, which ultimately allow it to function on the different planes that Tannen identifies.
In my own case, I think white-knighting has a great deal to do with the process of decontextualization and recontextualization. One of the hallmarks of WK is that it cannot be identified alone. Unlike flaming, where the content of the statement is enough to cause it to be entextualized as an instance of flaming, WK must be situated in response to another text in order to be recognized as WK. Exactly how it is decontextualized and recontextualized is unclear to me at this point, but I feel that this line of inquiry will allow me to uncover some of the ways this particular feature functions in the discourse of the communities I wish to study.
It seems to me that repetition often serves these functions; for example, in the Sloan data, it seems evident that decontexutalization and recontextualization are happening a great deal. For example, in the conversation that Tannen (2006) recounts about the package not being taken to the post office, it is evident that first the conversation, in the context of a wife leaving a husband and leaving a package that the mailman may or may not pick up, is entextualized as a question about a household chore and whether or not the husband will be willing to perform the chore if necessary. However, it is when the same discussion arises out of its original context that it becomes re-created as a different conversation entirely—a conversation about whether or not the husband will support the wife in the instance that her job becomes more stressful. As the same bit of text (the question about the box) is repeated, it goes through the stages that Bauman and Briggs identify, which ultimately allow it to function on the different planes that Tannen identifies.
In my own case, I think white-knighting has a great deal to do with the process of decontextualization and recontextualization. One of the hallmarks of WK is that it cannot be identified alone. Unlike flaming, where the content of the statement is enough to cause it to be entextualized as an instance of flaming, WK must be situated in response to another text in order to be recognized as WK. Exactly how it is decontextualized and recontextualized is unclear to me at this point, but I feel that this line of inquiry will allow me to uncover some of the ways this particular feature functions in the discourse of the communities I wish to study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)