Mansplaining

In a bizarre interaction reposted on comic book writer Matt Fraction's blog, we can see gender ideology discussed as it occurs.  There is also a "Because patriarch" use, not to mention tons of not-so-subtle parody of others' speech, enough to make Bakhtin reach for a notebook and pen.  So it's got language all up in it, huh?

http://mattfraction.com/post/111967691104/lilymischief-mansplaining-is-trying-to-make-a

Language Ideology, Linguistics Markets, and Cultural Capital: Reflections on the readings

Language is about much more than the efficient communication of information, Pierre Bourdieu reminds us. He writes, "[U]tterances are not only ... signs to be understood and deciphered; they are also signs of wealth, intended to be evaluated and appreciate, and signs of authority, intended to be believed and obeyed" ("Language and Symbolic Power" 502). In terms of the linguistic market, one important question is which agents in an exchange have power to impose criteria that value their linguistic products.

Forms of language/linguistic features take on meaning through the circulation of language ideologies. Kathryn Woolard and Bambi Schieffelin provide four different definitions of linguistic/language ideologies on p. 57, from more neutral ones, such as "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world," to ones that include speakers' political and moral interests, such as "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests." Judith Irvine and Susan Gal focus on how speakers' understandings of linguistic differences get mapped onto people and activities.

In preparation for our discussion on Wednesday, I'm asking you to respond to a few key issues in the texts, to start to work out your thinking about these theoretical frameworks/concepts and to put questions on the table for our discussion. Please post these by 8 pm on Tuesday, and please feel free to incorporate a response to others' posts into yours if relevant.

Katie, Christine, and Josh: I'm asking you to take one quote from the Bourdieu readings that you found especially provocative or challenging (in any and all senses of those words) and respond to it here. Please supply the quote and then develop your meditation on it in a detailed paragraph.

Ryan, Allie, Elizabeth, and Aubrey: Please choose one of the following topics from the Bourdieu readings and provide a paragraph-long meditation on it, which either begins or ends with a question you think would generate productive discussion in class (I'm hoping among the four of you, we can cover at least three): the standard language market vs. alternative language markets; the anticipation of sanction and self-censorship (or the relationship of production and reception); the relationship of "symbolic capital" to the three forms of capital described in "The Forms of Capital" (economic, cultural, social).

Steve, Inez, Kelly, and Kathryn: I'm asking you (a) to pull out two features of linguistic/language ideologies mentioned in Woolard & Schieffelin or in Irvine & Gal that you found especially helpful for thinking about the definition of linguistic/language ideologies and their effects and explain why in a detailed paragraph.

Gail, jd, and Ben: I'm asking you to reflect on this question in a detailed paragraph: Where do language ideologies reside? (Some questions that could help with this one: Are they explicit or implicit? How are they acquired?) As you can imagine, this is a very important question to think through in order to study language ideologies.

17 British Accents

Here's a comedian doing 17 different British accents, with examples of celebrities and characters from TV and movies who speak them. You can really hear the differences! And there's a roving map!

http://www.bbc.com/travel/feature/20140619-one-woman-17-british-accents?ocid=global_travel_rss&ocid=global_bbccom_email_11022015_travel

Language change humor. Because Friday.

This great panel cartoon from xkcd.com on the winners/losers of language change got a shout-out earlier today on the Twitter feed of the Linguistic Society of America -- @LingSocAm, if you want to follow. I'm re-sharing here partly in the spirit of end-of-week levity, but mostly because I thought it so well captured the idea we have been discussing that certain words/phrases will just win out over time. And that is okay.

Man makes it a mission to eliminate 'comprised of' from Wikipedia

Well, this is dedication: One Man’s Quest to Rid Wikipedia of Exactly One Grammatical Mistake

And here is his article on Wikipedia discussing why 'comprised of' is abominable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giraffedata/comprised_of

Bashing Vocal Fry (or Creaky Voice)

Last week "This American Life" featured a short segment on vocal fry or creaky voice, focused specifically on how some listeners vehemently criticize the women reporters on NPR for the creak in their voices. (Thanks for the heads-up, Eric!) It is Act Two, "Freedom Fries" (8.5 minutes). I'm struck by the vitriol in the listener comments. And as Ira Glass points out, this is just the latest complaint about younger women's voices on the radio. If you want to hear Bob Garfield get cranky about creaky voice, check out this 2013 Lexicon Valley podcast, "Do You Creak?" The podcast also provides more details about some of the more empirical studies of creaky voice.

Have you noticed creaky voice in your own speech or in others? Have you also had a strong reaction or has this not been on your radar?  (Had you ever noticed it in Ira Glass's voice before?) I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the ideologies at play here in condemning this linguistic feature (which is not as new as many people think it is) as "annoying" and/or in hearing it as "professional."

For more information, here is the piece from Science Magazine, and here's the abstract of the article from the Journal of Voice. And here's a 2014 article in The Atlantic about a study that suggested vocal fry might hurt women's job prospects.