Eric Chambers’ dissertation work analyzes a gay men’s message board dedicated to the practice of gay male erotic hypnosis and BDSM. Participants join the message board in order to enter a relationship with a “coach”, get “tranced” so as to become a “dumb jock”. The coach is a “dominant” in BDSM parlance and the jock is the “submissive.” Eric’s work explores how these men enact their new found “dumb jock” selves through a set of non-standard orthographic and syntactic practices. He analyzes his data using (inter alia) Critical Discourse Analytic methods, (Fairclough 2012), focusing on the micro, meso, and macro levels.
Syelle Graves’ dissertation work explores the emergence of a discourse marker she calls “backstory so”. (For a simple description of discourse markers click here).
Using corpus analytic and experimental methods, her work describes the unique pragmatic functions and syntactic constraints of the variant; it occurs at the beginning of a sentence, in response to a question, and often signals that the speaker is about to give a response that is longer (hence “backstory”) than the hearer would prefer.
(1)
Armando: Are your classes on weekends?
Patricia: So, the French class is on Wednesdays, but the literature class is on Saturdays, yes.
Syelle is also interested in how people perceive this variant; thus, a second dimension of her work explores the social meanings of “backstory so” and how it is evaluated in discourse using experimental survey methods. Lastly, her work turns to social media and discourse analysis as another fertile site for examining attitudes towards this new form.
The paper by Teresa Heyd on Folk-Linguistics Landscapes connects to Syelle’s topic in that many people express similar “grassroots prescriptive” attitudes towards “backstory so”.
Here’s an example of an online comment addressing this feature:
(2)
Why does this happen? Why did people decide to start beginning sentences with “so”? Very irritating [emphasis added]!
Tonight I was watching Shark Tank on TV and the contestant answered every questionwith “So, …”. Drove me nuts! I went online and searched to see if anyone else has noticed this irritating trend. Glad to learn I’m not the only one to notice…
Thanks to Kelsey for supplying this link. In the blog, Nelson Flores reminds us of the critical, activist agenda entailed in Prof. Ofelia Garcia’s original conception of ‘translanguaging’ and expresses concern about the drift he sees in the ways that researchers are using the term in ways that bleach it of these dimensions.
When conversing through computer-mediated channels, it appears that individuals are motivated to find ways to express sentiment and emotion that would be comparable to what can be done in face-to-face (FtF) communication. It is important to understand that the processes people engage in online are not new, but adaptations of the processes that occur in FtF interactions. Herring and Androutsopoulos (2015) distinguish between phenomena familiar, reconfigured, or emergent in CMD modes. These terminology choices were important because even though there are constantly new modes of communication being developed, the ways individuals will choose to communicate through them will be based in what they do in existing modes. As Herring and Androutsopoulos describe, people may rely more on “utterances” than complete sentences and send multiple texts with related content instead of a large paragraph to distinguish pauses imitating intonation units in speech.
Although not mentioned in Herring and Androutsopoulos (2015), I also believe that the purpose of some features offered through platforms such as Facebook and iMessage is to fill in the gaps left behind by the lack of nonverbal cues offered on computer-mediated platforms. Specifically, Facebook and iMessage reactions that allow one to “like”, “haha”, “???”, etc. to a message mirror what happens in FtF interactions. Sometimes we only respond to others with nonverbal responses such as a head nod (a “like”), a laugh (a “haha”), or a puzzled expression (a “???”). Luddites may argue that the act of liking messages is more dismissive and downgrading our communication, but I would advocate for the opposite. These reactions are truer to our experiences, particularly when no particular verbal response feels appropriate or sufficient for the context.
Individuals can also improve the transmission of information about mood and intentions through text manipulations, word selection, and paralinguistic cues (emoticons, exclamation points, etc.). Text manipulations include adding additional letters to accentuate emotional expression (e.g., “That’s soooooo great” to emphasize excitement), using onomatopoeic words (e.g., “hmm” for thoughtfulness), and using capital letters to increase impact, (e.g., “HOW COULD YOU?” to insinuate anger). Swineheart (2017) describes examples of using some of these text manipulations like the all caps used in CrazyQueen1916’s comment to indicate passion and praise as a fan of the music.
I was also fascinated by the polyphonous graphemic representations of Spanish words that follow English spelling discussed in Cutler (2017). Particularly in my own experiences on Facebook, I wondered if this was done to circumvent Facebook’s Google translate feature and to isolate the conversation to only those familiar with the language. Yet it appears that this can indicate the blending of language and culture. I also had not previously considered how using graphemes such as for que could be used as a symbol of non-conformity and to disturb sociolinguistic standards. One of the most fascinating aspects of computer-mediated discourse is that, unlike some of our nonverbal behaviors, our text manipulations are almost always intentional. Thus, word choices, manipulations, reactions, etc. can be even more meaningful and powerful in CMD than FtF.
Sources:
Cutler, C. (2017) “Pink chess gring gous”: discursive and orthographic resistance among Mexican-American rap fans on YouTube.
Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. The handbook of discourse analysis, 2, 127-151.
Swineheart, K. (2017). Footing and role alignment online: mediatized indigeneity and Andean hip hop.
Susan Herring and Jannis Androutsopoulos’s chapter on Computer Mediated Discourse 2.0 outlines approaches that consider the temporal, multi-modal and situational contexts to consider in CMD. The examples in the chapter treat the computer platform as a neutral conduit of information where variation in content and timing of interactions are determined by the user. While I agree most formats of computer mediated discourse closely follow non-digital precedents, there are factors in the design and algorithmic makeup of platforms like Facebook and Twitter that present a new layer of influence and context that is difficult to document.
The most controversial study of the influence of platforms over discourse was by Facebook themselves. In 2012, their “Emotional Contagion” study selected 700,000 random, non-consenting users and divided them into four groups: a group whose newsfeed blocked posts with negative words (i.e. “sad”), a group whose newsfeed blocked positive words (i.e. “happy”), and two control groups. The researchers found that users in each group responded by using more negative or positive words to match their group. In other words, the Facebook platform itself influenced hundreds of thousands of people to write in a negative sentiment when they might not have otherwise. Outside of the published results, this study presents something more eye opening: Facebook is manipulating data all the time with goals and effects we can not see or know. How might we account for this flux when collecting discourse data? Can we measure how an online environment varies among subjects at the time of their posts or interactions?
In addition to modifications tailored at an individual level, Facebook and Twitter manipulate context and temporal norms. These social platforms create a dominant discourse by promoting trends that may or may not be reflective of a community’s interest or values. Because of advertising revenue incentives, controversial (click-able) content is more favorable than nuanced posts. In this way, the trending algorithm steers the subject of discourse. A post feed is also curated by the platform so that some posts rise to the top while others fade or are never seen. In this way, trending shuffles the temporal assumptions of communication. Is there a way to factor in the rise of a subject matter in discourse that may have gained traction from an outside party (i.e. advertiser, trolls, bots)? Does the constant reactiveness of the feed distinguish it from the ways other mass media influence discourse?
Algorithms are created by humans and in many ways their influence on the discourse environment can be compared to a non-digital predecessors: mass media influence, propaganda, or an administrator like a switchboard operator. However, there is speed of transmission, constant calibration, replicability of messages and audience reach that is unique. As a result, the computer is not a neutral transmission agent. Curated platforms with users who are unknown, anonymous or automated (bots) can steer and amplify discourse into radically polarized directions without being detected. Any research with Facebook or Twitter discourse data must account for these factors.
Sources:
Susan Herring and Jannis Androutsopoulos. Computer-Mediated Discourse 2.0. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Second Edition. 2015.
Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory and Jeffrey T. Hancock,
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
[http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788]
By nature, any communicative action in human society is multimodal: language is only one of semiotic systems that we use to convey meaning. Cameron & Panovic (2014) are focusing on describing three different traditions of studying multimodal discourse analysis: semiological, pragmatic and systemic-functional approaches. Combined, these approaches provide a useful research framework for someone who would like to undertake a multimodal discourse analysis of their research object without prior exposure to the topic.
Cameron & Panovic start by describing a semiological approach which provides a fundamental understanding of a “science that studies the life of signs within society” (Saussure, 1915/1966) and sets out the foundational elements for analysis – the understanding of sign, which consists of signifiers (or one could say “markers”) and signified (concept behind those markers). What is interesting is that the connection between the “markers” and concepts behind them are in flux, as the society and its culture changes. Another author emphasizes this fact by saying that since “in real life relationships are arbitrary and change rapidly, one must be on one’s toes all the time” and in order to be able to correctly understand the situation at hand and draw the right meaning, we all have to be “practicing semioticians” in our day-to-day life (Berger, 2014). Being aware of the multiple semiotic systems and thinking critically about the implied meaning are thus applied skills in the arsenal of a good detective, as well as an academician.
The second approach highlights the importance of context contributing to the meaning of signs – since signs only acquire their meaning in relation to one other (through the difference of opposites), it is important to understand the world that they inhabit. The pragmatic approach offers a ‘relevance theory’, which “emphasizes that communication does not only rely on participants’ knowledge of a code or sign-system, but also depends on their ability to infer meanings which are not directly encoded in the message” (Cameron & Panovic, 2014). Such ability depends on the cultural background and understanding of social practices of participants, who are then better able to understand the intention of the message. Thus the pragmatic approach enriches and adds more complexity to the semiological approach of pure sign systems.
A systemic-functional approach is bringing the multimodal discourse analysis framework together by outlining three functions of any semiotic system: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The ideational function helps to understand the purpose of the message – narrative (depiction of actions or events) or conceptual (analytical purposes). Interpersonal function explores relationships between the sender, the addressee and the message itself, while textual function ensures the overall coherence of the message medium.
These three approaches to multimodal discourse analysis have their own strong aspects of focus which in combination provide probably an all-encompassing framework to conduct one’s own multimodal discourse analysis. Taking these three approaches together has helped me to shape my own research framework for the discourse analysis of urban neighborhoods, which beyond textual information, such as street signs, have multiple non-verbal semiotic systems that can convey meaning behind the life of the neighborhood. Cameron & Panovic describe one of such modes of analysis as the study of “linguistics landscapes”, which analyzes publicly visible language (road signs, advertising billboards, street names, etc.) and could tell more about local policy, ideologies, social practices. In my research project I hypothesize whether studying these local linguistic signs in combination with other non-verbal semiotic systems can yield understanding of factual information, such as demographic profile, or maybe even predict a population health profile of the neighborhood. For this purpose, different approaches within multimodal discourse analysis will help to paint perhaps a nearly complete semiotic landscape of a city neighborhood.
References:
Cameron & Panovic. 2014. Multimodal discourse analysis, ch. 8 in Working with Written Discourse. Sage. 97-111.
Cameron & Panovic. 2014. Multilingual discourse analysis, ch. 10 in Working with Written Discourse. Sage. 130-149.
Berger. 2014. Signs in Contemporary Culture. An Introduction to Semiotics.
Being critical is not always an easy task, especially when the object of our research is our primary tool: discourse. In fact, the critical discourse analyst Teun van Dijk argues that “we need a more explicit analysis of the very notion of what it means to be ‘critical’ […]” (2015, p. 479). According to the critical pedagogue Joe L. Kincheloe, this notion, when used in an academic context, is a “difficult animal to describe” (2008, p. 48) because there are many approaches to this concept; its meaning is always changing and evolving; and critical theorists avoid giving it too much specificity in order to leave room for development.
However, the word ‘critical’ has a long theoretical tradition. Its roots were established by the Frankfurt School in the 1930’s. In its beginnings, critical analysts were preoccupied by the changing nature of capitalism and the mutating forms of domination that accompanied this change (Kincheloe, 2008). For this reason, the first critical analysts were committed to unveil how injustice and subjugation shaped the world beyond the economic scenarios. Nowadays, a critical social theory studies “issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy, matters of race, class and gender, ideologies, discourses, education, religion, social institutions and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 49).
Thus, in order to be ‘critical’, Kincheloe explains, one has to become an “awkward detective, always interested in uncovering social structures, discourses, ideologies, and epistemologies that prop up both the status quo and a variety of forms of privilege” (2008, p. 50). Moreover, being critical in the 21st century means to be aware of how hegemonic ideologies are constantly enacted and contested through various forms of discourse. However, it seems that many critical discourse analysts are not taking into account this struggle. They are still adhered to a monolithic and unidirectional notion of ideology that cannot be challenged by the oppressed.
In the exercise of being critical, I will start with the evaluation of my own “critical” research to determine whether I considered the discursive tensions between the dominant and dominated groups.
For my master’s dissertation, I studied the representation of students in the media during the University of Puerto Rico’s strike of 2010. More specifically, I examined the discursive practices used to describe students in three Puerto Rican newspapers. My aim was to uncover the prejudice against students in the news. And I did just that using critical discourse analysis as my theoretical and methodological framework.
Although I exposed and described how dominant ideologies were reproduced in news’ discourse, I realized now that I was not being critical enough. By considering only what was being said in the media, I neglected the students’ alternate discourse, that denounced how the Government was threatening public education. Students used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and even created a radio station (Radio Huelga) to circulate their counter-hegemonic discourse. And their dissident words were heard. The people of Puerto Rico gave them their support despite the negative discourse against them in the media. This, and the resentment of the people with the Government, resulted in the student strike’s success.
The omission of this social fact limited my study. I did not provide a thorough exposure of what happened in that historical moment. In a way, I gave the media’s discourse more power, legitimating it as the only discourse available, when this was not the case.
Therefore, I believe that the very notion of being critical requires a constant re-evaluation of our own work. We need to take into consideration all —or most— aspects of society, all the people involved and the context, to make our discourse analysis more comprehensive and fair with the people that fight everyday towards their emancipation.
References
Kincheloe, Joe L. (2008). “The Foundations of Critical Pedagogy”. Critical Pedagogy Primer 2nd edition. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Quijano-Seda, Carmín. (2013). Quijano Seda, Carmín. La representación de los estudiantes en la prensa: un análisis macroestructural semántico de las noticias sobre la huelga de la Universidad de Puerto Rico de 2010. Santurce: Universidad del Sagrado Corazón. Master’s thesis.
Van Dijk, Teun. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Tannen et al. pp. 466-479.
Jaspers, J. (2012). Interactional sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. In Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 135-146. New York: Routledge.
The reality, however, is that speakers assume that all the subtle, mild, hidden factors that aid in getting a message across during a face to face interaction will be attached to the words they write, even in the absence of contextual paralinguistic data, i.e. pragmatic, proxemic, haptic, or kinesic information. These elements play a decisive role in different day-to-day situations, such as job application interviews, and even how to seduce strangers in a nightclub.
Now, if we were to understand language simply as “…a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length, and constructed out of a finite set of elements.” (Chomsky, 1957: 13), we would be discarding these important nuances of communication altogether. Language is, therefore, more than the verbal syntax-semantics of a message, and that is where Interactional sociolinguistics (IS) walks in…
As an additional branch of linguistics, together with discourse and conversation analysis, IS relies on theoretical insights from formal, applied and anthropological linguistics, as well as pragmatics, dialectology, and sociology. IS assumes that verbal speech is not the only element in communication, but it is complemented by background knowledge, speakers’ prior understandings and assumptions.
During face to face interaction, there is a tacit agreement about the shared information that shapes the conversation, which permits speakers to fill in the missing portions of a message, resulting in a suitable interpretation of the intended meaning. A well-known example is that of the word fire, whose meaning and intention varies according to the situation or the person that utters it (i.e. a sergeant in a fire squad, a firefighter, a boy scout camping outdoors, etc.)
Among some of the topics of interest, IS focuses on miscommunication, native-nonnative interactions, and negotiation of meaning. These are addressed through a social approach that treats discourse as a set of habitual practices. Language is thus perceived as a rapidly evolving resource of social agents in a constant flux of information, determined by the structures of society. This perspective has got an unavoidable tendency to gravitate towards the critical analysis of power structures within society, as seen in the roles played by the speakers.
In order to undertake an IS analysis, the requirements go well beyond the traditional data collection strategies employed in more formal approaches of linguistics. Unlike the laboratory work of psycholinguistics, or the isolated phoneme recordings of phonetics, the IS researcher should usually be immersed in the local situations where spoken interaction occurs (or have an abundant quantity of written texts, for text-linguistics). This is due to the need to take an ethnographic approach in IS. The subtle nuances that allow speakers to fill in the gaps, should also be available to the researcher in order to assess the complexities of real word communication, beyond the level of the sentence.
As a conclusion, IS has a relevance in several fields, other than linguistics alone. Language policy and planning, educational initiatives, marketing, customer service, “soft-skills” training, to name but a few, are some of its areas of application. IS exhibits established discursive practices that are culturally and socially determined and it allows to expand the scope of communication studies and linguistics, for scientists, as well as to achieve small but important feats for the rest of us, whether it is sending an effective email, landing a dream job or getting that phone number in a nightclub.
Need help with the Commons?
Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:
