Multiphrenia: looking at a friend’s facebook account.

In class, we read about multiphrenia, the presentation of the self in different ways according to the situation. I decided to do a small ethnographic study to see how my friend from home, Laura, presents herself on facebook as opposed to how she presents herself to me and to people that she has just met.

I have noticed that Laura is very shy around people that she doesn’t know well, and I expected her to present herself this way on the internet since she would not know who is looking at her profile. I would say that Laura is a person who values privacy and is not quick to open up to strangers. I was surprised to find that she presented herself on facebook much closer to the way she presents herself to me. She is very open about her likes and dislikes in movies and music when she usually is embarrassed to tell people that she doesn’t know well what she likes.

Many of her facebook profile pictures and albums are of her making faces or acting silly. When Laura meets someone for the first time, she is not usually this open to show her silly side. Laura presents more of her “true self” on facebook than she does when meeting strangers. We have read that since the blogger/internet user can’t see the audience and doesn’t know who is reading what they are putting online, they are free to be more themselves. I think this is certainly true of my friend.

Minnesota vs. Pennsylvania

It just so happens that most of my friends are either from Minnesota or Western/Central Pennsylvania. Our group is divided according to accents. Though I don’t usually recognize the fact that I have an accent, my friends are quick to remind me. The MN people have also commented that they don’t realize that they have an accent except when the PA people tease them. The functions of these conversations are both phatic and metalingual.

However, all of us are proud of our state and, to a certain extent, our accents. I tease the MN people for saying “Ooooh yaaaah” or “Suuuure yooou betcha dontcha knooow” or “oofda!” They make fun of my colloquialisms (gumband = rubberband, read up = clean up, sweeper = vaccuum) and failure to pronounce L’s and double O’s.

Accents define who we are to a certain extent. They let other people know where one is from and often are the basis by which people are judged. I have become much more aware of my accent by comparing the way I speak to the way my friends from MN speak.

Questions about Language:

This course has answered a lot of questions that I had about language but also opened up the possibility for more questions:
1. How aware are people of the functions that their language performs?
2. What are the functions of politeness? Phatic?
3. Why is it that when verbal art is analyzed, it is no longer funny?
4. How is electronic communication perceived by older people who did not grow up with it but who use it now?
5. Why is it that people who are aware of the techniques persuasive language are still persuaded by it?
6. Are there any examples of pure performance?

So many questions, so little class time…

Presenting myself as “That other one”

Being identical twins, my sister, Pam, and I have to put up with people mixing us up, calling us by the wrong name, and saying things like “You’re the same person.” It can be frustrating. So, once a year for the past three years we have decided to get revenge/play tricks/see who really knows who we are. We do this by switching places in the marching band. She plays trumpet in the band. I do not play an instrument and have never been in the marching band. This Friday, we switched places in for the pep rally. We met up after her practice and switched coats and hats. I went to the pep rally and she went to dinner. (By the way, I definitely saw Caitlin there but I don’t think she thought it was me.)

Beforehand, Pam has had to train me how to “be” her. There are practical issues such as marching, how to hold a trumpet and pretend to play, and whistle and hand signals. However, there are also other ways of presenting myself as her linguistically. She informed me of different inside jokes she has with certain people. She also has different ways of greeting different people. For example, many band members have nicknames that may not be used outside of the band. In order to present myself as Pam, I have to call these people by their nicknames and not be the names that they may introduce themselves as. I also had to pretend to know what the trumpets were talking about when they discussed other band members, music and formations (which I know nothing about.) I would give back-channel cues as if I knew exactly what was going on. There was also the very simply procedure of answering to the name “Pam.” I usually do not do this (unless I know someone is confused). I also had a few of Pam’s friends who were in on the prank call me Pam. Here is what I observed:

We counted at least 12 people who we were 100% sure that they were fooled, either because they called me Pam or they did not think there was anything strange that I, and not Pam, was there. There were a lot of people who walked past me and did not take much notice of me/Pam. I’m not sure if Pam does not know them or if they didn’t notice that I wasn’t Pam.

There were 2 cases of particular interest:

One girl (whose name I can’t remember) came up to me and started talking to me. She said that I looked particularly like Em that night, more than usual. I thought that she knew the truth but she kept talking about how I/Pam sometimes look more like Em than usual. I went along with the conversation but didn’t explicitly say that I wasn’t Pam. About five minutes later, Chris (on of Pam’s friends who was in on the prank) slipped and called me Em. She was really shocked that I actually was Em and not Pam who just happened to look more like Em that night. I thought that she was testing waters with her language by saying that I looked like Em. I think that she expected a confession if I turned out to be Em and not Pam.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with one boy, Bobby, who told me all about his bad day. I commiserated with him, pretended to know all the people that he was talking about, and was generally nice to him (as I imagine Pam would be). The people who had figured it out were laughing the whole time, but Bobby didn’t catch on. Finally I told him that I wasn’t Pam. He got really made – profanity included. He said that it wasn’t fair that he didn’t realize it was me because I was in a the band, a situation where he wasn’t suspecting I would be. He was also mad that I went along with the conversation, that I presented myself as Pam. He said that he couldn’t be expected to tell us apart if I was presenting myself as Pam.

I think this is the key to the whole situation. If you present yourself as one person and talk and act like that person in a situation where that person usually is, than no one should suspect you are any thing other than what you present yourself as.

Self presentation and being agreeable

The article that I found for Monday was about presenting oneself and trying to make people like you when discussing different political views. It was called “Taking the Edge off disagreement: linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience” by Monica Rubini of the University of Bologna and Harold Sigall of the University of Maryland. The article became very technical, but I will do my best to summarize it:

The authors did an experiment where they told participants that they wanted them to talk to two strangers and try to get the strangers to like them. They two people were either both of the same political view, both of differing political views, or a mix of one person with the same political view and one person of differing views from the participant. The language was measured by how abstract it was. There were four categories starting from the most concrete (also listed are the examples that they gave in the article):
1. Descriptive action verbs – uses objective language – “John tripped Tom”
2. Interpretive action verbs – verbs that evaluate the action – “John injured Tom”
3. State Verbs – verbs that do not have temporal or situational reference – “John envies Tom”
4. Adjectives – “transcend specific situations, objects, behaviors, or reference persons” (344), - “John is nasty”

The participants differed in how they presented themselves linguistically. People tended to use more abstract language with the people with whom they shared political views because it is more “trans-situational and stable over time.” (344). Although I’m not completely sure, I think that this means that the people were comfortable making much broader statements that didn’t have the same amount of evidence as concrete statements which were used with people with whom the participants did not share political views. It seems to me that abstract language can be the most easily misinterpreted. When someone does not agree with your political opinions, they may easily take an abstract adjectives and put a different meaning than what was intended. This could lead to a misunderstanding and make the participant disagreeable to the other two interviewers. When someone agrees with you, then they will also agree with your abstract language. It is safer to make broad statements when everyone already agrees with you.

Response to Koven

I really liked how Koven looked at the way that people present themselves differently through different ways of speaking. I think that we all have different codes even if we are not all bilingual. She somewhat addresses this in her conclusion:

“Different ways of speaking, within and across languages, create socially and psychologically real effects for people, producing for the same speaker multiple expressions and experiences of socially recognizable selves” (437).

I can relate to this. I find myself speaking more politely and in general acting more politely around strangers, especially when I am asking them for something. I notice that when I talk to a cashier, university official or when I ask for directions I am use very polite language. I go over-the-top with directives, stand up straight, and hedge a lot. I would describe myself as polite, humble, and somewhat timid. I do not act like this at all around my friends where I am much more relaxed. I present myself differently for different sets of people through the language that I use.

I notice similar changes in behavior and language in my little sister when we go to our grandma’s. It doesn’t matter if she was fighting with me, swearing, or using informal language. The second we walk into my grandma’s house, she presents herself as the angel child, speaking politely and using proper grammar. Her speech and her entire attitude change.

My best friend from home also is guilty of code-switching behavior, especially when answering the phone. She speaks in an extremely high-pitched, saccharine voice when she says “Hello, this is Laura.” If I am on the other end, then she reverts to her normal voice and informality. If we are in the same room and an adult is on the other end of the phone, she continues on with the “fake” voice. She is extremely polite and obliging. However, once she hangs up the phone, she is back to her normal self.

I don’t think there is anything hypocritical in these changes in language and behavior. I think that we are all “multiphrenic” as we read earlier. There are appropriate times to present oneself in different ways.

Response to The Decline and Fall of the Private Self

I found Flora’s article to be closely connected with Gergen’s idea of the multiphrenia – people portray themselves in different forms through the means of blogging. Flora writes that “Whether he [the blogger] realizes it or not, the online scribe cultivates an identity that anticipates and responds to its audience.” I take this to mean that a person cultivates a persona that he or she portrays online. This persona may be different from how one presents oneself in face-to-face situations. “You become a character [online], a speaking part, in the larger theater of society.” By playing a character, the person would seem to not be being himself and would not be connected to reality, which is not like a movie. There are a lot of instances where people make up completely fake persona’s, like lonelygirl15, and blog or present themselves online. When people find out that this is not their true selves, they become upset. It is surprising to me that anyone can think that what a person chooses to tell about himself online is absolutely true. It seems like this is another instance of not being connected to reality.

On a completely separate note, I found that this article put into words why I find blogging so uncomfortable and somewhat “creepy.” The people in the article talk about themselves as being characters in a movie. It seems as if they crave being a celebrity and will put all privacy aside in an attempt to be famous. I do not want to be a celebrity. I value my privacy and feel uncomfortable sharing personal information about myself with strangers. Even homework (such as this blog) feels to me as if I am allowing people to read my personal work. I feel obligated to put on the perfect persona of being an intelligent, articulate student. When I blog, I feel like I am being watched and judged by others. I think that people who blog regularly feel like they also are being watched and judged but that they just enjoy that kind of attention.

Response to Gergen - Celebrities

One of the most interesting things, for me, about Gergen’s article was his point that people can form “relationships” with celebrities and people in the media. He makes the point that television, magazines and radio allow us to feel connected to people that we have never met. I find it very fascinating, not to mention foreign, that many people follow the lives of celebrities and take a great interest in their affairs. They are distraught when their favorite star is going through a hard time; they rejoice when the star is going to appear in a new movie; and they pour over pictures of the celebrity and his/her family, children, and love interests. Gergen makes the point that we feel a connection to these people because we see them on TV or in the movies all the time. I would disagree with him. I don’t think that the way the celebrity presents himself is who that person truly is. Like Gergen says, we all have mutliphrenia – many different personalities depending on the circumstance. I find it odd that people feel that they know celebrities through their work. Why do people take such a great interest in people that they will never meet and who do not care at all about them? To me, this seems like a very strange relationship. Perhaps the class can enlighten me.

I like his point that “because celebrity figures are known by so many people, they serve as forms of social glue, allowing people from different points of society to converse with each other, to share feelings, and essentially to carry on informational relations.” I’m not sure if I entirely agree with this. I don’t think all interactions with strangers can be reduced to the fact that we all know the same celebrities. However, I do think that if we take “celebrity” in a broader sense of the word, the statement makes a little more sense: celebrity can mean someone who is famous in a group of people. So, at ND, Fr. Jenkins, certain popular (or notorious) professors, very outgoing, popular students, and the student body president might be considered celebrities. We all know them and can talk about them even if these people are not considered celebrities by anyone outside our group. I think the celebrities can help define the group’s identity because they represent (or are the antithesis of) what the group believes and stands for.) However, I don’t think that it is these celebrities in particular that hold the group together. The common interests of the group are what create the group and allow celebrities to emerge.

Communication technology and true friendship

There has been much concern from both specialists and the general population that email, instant messenger, social networking sites, cell phones, and other computer mediated communication are destroying genuine friendships. Although there is some data in support of this view, overwhelmingly, researchers argue that technology is actually helping to bring people together into strong, meaningful relationships. With the use of computer mediated communication, people are choosing to have more weak ties but are not necessarily abandoning their strong ties with others. There is also evidence that communication technology supports long-distance relationships as well as friendships that might have fallen apart without CMC. Despite concern that electronic communication is destroying relationships, new media has actually strengthened and maintained genuine ties between people.
There is substantial evidence that, while people who use CMC have many more weak ties, their strong ties and meaningful relationships have not suffered as a consequence. Matsuda writes about the concern in Japan that “over twenty years since 1973, there has been a decease in people of all generations who want “comprehensive” relationships with relatives, neighbors, and co-workers, and an increase in people who want “partial” or “formal” relationships” (Matsuda 137). It would seem then, that people in Japan are abandoning strong ties in favor of weak ones due to the rise of availability in CMC. However, Matsuda qualifies this assumption by arguing that this trend “was related not only to keitai adoption but also to a broader context of concurrent generational change and urbanization trends” (Matsuda 138). Therefore, new media is not responsible for any decrease in strong friendships in Japan. Baron’s research also supports Matsuda’s positions: “Contemporary data generally suggest that networked computers aren’t reducing our number of friendships or the amount of time we spend with one another” (Baron 122). People may have hundreds of Facebook “friends” but never spend much time or have an intimate relationship with them. However, having hundreds of weak connections does not pull a person away from his strong ties. People are using CMC to “foster relationships with those whom they choose to contact” (Matsuda 123). While Facebook is “a way to of maintaining a [weak] friendship without having to make any effort whatsoever,” people realize that effort is needed to maintain strong relationships and act accordingly (Baron 85).
New media helps to foster these already established strong relationships and allows people to remain closer in touch when they otherwise could not have done so. Communication technologies especially help to maintain relationships in which the two friends no longer live close by. In Japan, pagers, and later keitai, make “it possible to be friends with people in different places and under different circumstances…Pagers and keitai do not increase the number of friends that young people meet with and associate with outside of school They primarily provide opportunities to maintain relationships with friends who used to go to the same school” (Matsuda 127). From this evidence, it is clear that technology in Japan is used to nurture previously established strong relationships. Without technology, young people may lose contact with friends from school who move away. Here, as in other places, new media is a help rather than a hindrance to friendship. Along with keeping in touch with friends who move away, Matsuda gives the example of the kaeru call in which a person will call home on a cell phone to let the family know when he or she will be home. These phone calls, which show intimacy and help to establish connections within a family, have only come about since the emergence and ubiquity of cell phones in Japan. It is widely thought that without the kaeru and “these routine communications…the family could disintegrate” (Matsuda 131). Again, new media is allowing families to stay in contact with one another throughout the day and to maintain their already strong relationships. Baron agrees with Matsuda’s analysis that CMC allows people with existing relationships to stay together but also goes on to comment that sometimes people use the technology as a way to become too closely tied and dependent on another person. Technologies “provide opportunities to tether ourselves to one another” (Baron 224). She gives the example of the college students who call home 10 times a week (Baron 224). Although Baron sees this type of relationship as too dependent, she cannot argue that the parents and children do not have a close, strong relationship. In both Japan and the United States, evidence shows that CMC is maintaining previously established strong relationships.
Finally, CMC plays a major role in maintaining important relationships between people whose ties might have disintegrated if not for the ease and convenience of new media. “Social interaction is increasingly becoming virtual” (Baron 219). In general, there is a lot less face-to-face interaction and a lot more interaction through technology (Baron 219). However, continuing a previously established relationship strictly through CMC seems to be desirable in comparison with the alternative: abandoning the strong friendship. In Japan, where the society is becoming more individualistic, people no longer feel obligated to meet with family members and neighbors face-to-face. Instead, “making contact with family has become an individual’s responsibility and choice…people have to stay in close touch with one another on a regular basis through keitai” (Matsuda 132). In these types of situations, the children probably would not have any contact with their parents if it were not for a the convenience of a mobile phone. “There are indicators that keitai has increased contact with family members who were frequently out of the home and had few occasions to call” (Matsuda 130). These relationships would disintegrate if it were not for a cell phone or email. Therefore, it is desirable that people should use technology if it makes it easier to maintain essential family relationships since they do not want or do not have time for face-to-face interaction.
From the personal experiences of the class, it seems clear that many people use CMC to keep in contact with those from home with whom they have a strong relationship. Students call or text parents and siblings at home. High school friends exchange emails and chat on IM. While many of us have several hundred Facebook friends, we use the new media primarily to maintain strong, already established relationships. New media is also used to keep in contact with people who live nearby: calls, texts, and IMs seem to be primarily used to set up appointments to meet face-to-face. Clearly from both personal experience and the research of Baron and Matsuda, communication technologies help rather than hurt previously formed strong relationships.


Bibliography:
Baron, Naomi S. 2008. Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matsuda, Misa. 2005. “Mobile Communication and Selective Sociality.” In Personal, Portable and Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life, edited by Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, and Misa Matsuda. Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press.

Thoughts on Katz

One interesting observation that I made when reading Katz’ article was that people have always feared that new technology will destroy society and break down social conventions and morals. Everything from the telegraph, telephone, answering machine and cell phones has been viewed with distrust during their initial appearance. He makes the point that, after being around for quite some time, people see their usefulness and begin to accept the new technology. There are changes in culture and ideas of what is morally okay to do with the new technology.

Interestingly, he talked little about the ethics of some of the new technology. What we view as unethical today may be seen as perfectly normal once people see the usefulness of a new technology. That made me question whether we put convenience above morality. Are we only moral with our technology as long as it is convenient to us? There is some technology, such as cloning and embryonic stem-cell research that has been condemned for being immoral but there are still scientists who pursue advances in these fields. It seems that the possible technological advances that Katz outlines may be the same: mind mail and reading the thoughts of dead people seem to me to be an immoral dehumanization of a person, turning us into machines or something that can be read at our convenience. It is something to think about whether these advances will ever come to be and if they will be considered perfectly acceptable if people find them convenient.

Blog of Log

I logged my interaction with technology for 2 days because I felt that the first time I did it, I picked a bad day. I had a five hour practice where I would probably be using technology. I also was purposefully checking email and listening to my mp3 player (which I rarely do) in order to have something to write down. However, the second day I logged the time I spent with technology, I felt like I was on the computer all day and that this was accurate. I was working on making my survey for my ethnographic research and I spent about 2 hours on the internet working on it. Here is a summary of my log:

Saturday November 8th
Time How long Medium Purpose
9:30 5 minutes email email - check school business
9:35 2 minutes facebook facebook - check and clear status personal
9:40 1 minute cell phone call Pam for breakfast meeting
10:38 1 minute email email - send survey to myself homework
10:40- 11:55 1 hour 15 minutes Google survey make/fix survey on Google homework
10:40-11:55 1 hour 15 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
11:56 5 minutes email email survey to Pam, Sam, Anita and Prof homework
11:58 1 minute directory check for Sam's email address on directory referential
12:35 2 minutes cell phone talk to Pam on the phone about the survey referential
12:37- 1:28 50 minutes Google survey work on survey homework
12:37- 1:28 50 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
1:29 1 minute printer print survey homework
4:27 3 minutes email check emails from professors referential
4:30-4:59 29 minutes email send ballroom business email; respond to friends school business/phatic
4:40 2 minutes internet Check DPAC schedule referential
4:48 2 minutes facebook set up meeting with Chris meeting
5:55 5 minutes cell phone 3 calls to set up dinner time meeting
6:05 2 minutes blog post homework
6:06 2 minutes email check - nothing new school business
9:30-10:45 1 hour 15 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
9:30-10:45 1 hour 15 minutes TV watch the ND game - sound down personal
10:39 2 minutes facebook get friends addresses referential
11:00 1/2 hour internet/TV watch the Office online personal
11:40 15 minutes Google survey fix survey homework


Wednesday November 5th
9:15 10 minutes mp3 listen to music walking to class personal
10:45 10 minutes mp3 listen to music walking from class personal
11:15 10 minutes email check general emails and respond to professors school business
10:40 2 minutes cell phone voicemail referential
11:25 2 minutes facebook respond to event invitation personal/meeting
2:50 2 minutes cell phone call sister - set up meeting meeting
2:53 1 minute cell phone voicemail personal/referential
5:00 15 minutes email general check school business
5:17 2 minutes facebook check to see if anyone contacted me personal
11:25 4 minutes cell phone voicemail personal/referential
11:29 2 minutes cell phone set up appointment meeting
11:44 2 minutes cell phone set up appointment meeting
11:35 55 minutes Computer/email writing email to friends but was doing other things in my room - used email for about 15 minutes phatic


I think the most interesting thing about the log is the comparison between the two days. On wed, I used CMC for 1 hour 17 minutes. On Sunday, I used CMC for 8 and half hours. (There was some multitasking.) Generally, I think I use CMC more like I did on Wednesday. However, the range is really interesting. It is very possible for me to spend half my day on the computer if homework calls for it. I found this data very surprising.

I didn’t spend that many large chunks of time on CMC on Wed, but 10 minutes here, and 2 minutes there really add up. When every I check email, I always feel that I spend more time than I want to online. I didn’t realize that I spend over an hour using technology. Saturday was something of an anomaly. By the end of day, I felt completely burned out and wanted to throw my computer out the window. My dependence on my computer, especially for homework and sending referential emails really shocked me.

For the most part, I was alone when using CMC – cell phone use excluded. The only exception was the large chunk of time from 9:30 onward on Saturday. I watched the game, listened to music, and watched online TV with my sister. The rest of the day, I was communicating with other people but I was alone in my room. It was a very isolating day for me. I usually don’t spend this much time on my computer alone. I don’t really feel that I am actually connecting to people when I send emails. There’s something artificial and business-like in them. I don’t feel like I’m sending them to anyone at all.

The last point that I thought was interesting was that I did no multitasking on Wed but a lot of multitasking on Saturday. I listened to a lot of music when I was working online. The hours multitasking, I double counted for my total of 8 and ½ hours of technology. The amount of time spent without double counting the multitasking was about 6 hours.

True self and Face Threatening Acts

I think it’s interesting that people are more open, more their “true selves” on the internet. I think this makes sense though, especially considering “face-threatening acts” that we learned about last year. I don’t remember who wrote about face-threatening acts, but here’s a quick summary to the best of my ability for those of you who weren’t in the Fundamentals course:

A face-threatening act is any interaction with another person where you are asking something of them. This can be tangible things or intangible things. Anything from asking someone for directions to saying hello is a face threatening act because you are, in a way, invading someone else’s space and privacy and seeking some sort of response which the other person may not want to give you.

In a way, looking for friendship is also a face-threatening act. You are asking someone to reciprocate your attentions and feelings toward them. By being on the internet, you greatly reduce the amount of “threatening” that you do – chat rooms, like the ones in the experiment, are much more impersonal than face-to-face conversations. The person does not need to look at the stranger on the other end of the chat room. Also, it is much easier to ignore a person on IM without hurting another person’s feeling. Signing off can be explained with a quick excuse or two. A person may never “see” the stranger again, thereby making each person bolder: if you will never see someone again you may be more likely to answer questions or reveal things about yourself that you normally wouldn’t. Questions and information that may be threatening in a face-to-face situation become less threatening online.

The article “Can You See the Real Me?” mentions that anonymity is an essential part to the way people portray themselves online. If no one has an identity, in a manner of speaking, then no one really has a face to threaten. Therefore, it is much easier to put one’s true self out there and ask for friendship. The act is much less threatening to all involved and the risks of rejection aren’t as high.

Minor Ethnographic Research

This weekend I went out of town and was in the car for quite some time (7 hours up and back) with a group of people. Being an enthusiastic linguistic anthropologist, I naturally mentioned the topic of CMC during the ride (since my victims couldn’t escape :D ) I decided to do some informal ethnographic research. I asked everyone about their views of cell phone usage. Here is the results:

Nearly everyone in the car admitted to using their phones to call someone who was in the same house that they were in. When questioned why, they either said that it was easier or that they thought that shouting all around the house was rude. I asked them why they did not just walk into the next room or floor. The general consensus was that they were busy multitasking and that they didn’t have to disrupt their work to call someone else.

I told them about the debate over whether texting, IM, and blogging is destroying language. I asked them if they thought technology was making people stupider. Everyone said yes. This surprised me. However, no one indicated that they thought that they were becoming less intelligent. They said that in their experience, people do not want to read books that are written at a high reading level. (One of the girls was reading a romance novel which, as we discussed earlier, is usually written at a 6th grade reading level. However, she still complained that it was a shame that people did not have higher reading skills.)

I thought it was interesting that no one thought technology was making them stupider, just other people. Perhaps we judge the level of other people’s language against our own. This may be the reason why educators are so concerned: they presumably have a very high reading level, considering their education, and judge any difference from their speech and writing to be wrong or at least alarming. Maybe this is why texters and IMers who use a lot of abbreviations do not see anything wrong with their language.

One final question I asked was whether people preferred electronic or printed books. Baron said that one of the questions in the future was whether or not paper will play as an important role in an electronic world. The only boy who responded said that he preferred electronic texts because he could easily add his own notes to them. Personally, I like bound books because I can hold them and feel them. To me, they seem more real.

I seems as though this cross-section of the population is generally in agreement about calling people in the same house and the deterioration of language. Then again, this data wasn’t exactly collected in the most precise, scientific manner. However, I am always very interested in people’s opinions on what we talk about in class, especially if they haven’t academically studied the subjects in question.

Lists of Cell Phone Etiquette

For class tomorrow I read a few articles on Cell phone etiquette. There were a lot of “10 Commandments” of cell phone etiquette, and not all of them were the same. Although most authors agreed that respecting the people around you is the most important thing to consider when using a cell phone, some had varying view about what was considerate. Here is a summary (with out all of the “thou’s” and “thy’s”):

OfficeSolutions (magazine)
1. Be courteous and don’t force others to overhear your conversations
2. don’t let your phone ring in the theatre
3. or in a restaurant
4. or during an important meeting
5. Put the phone of silent and vibrate when you think a ring would be disruptive
6. screen incoming calls with caller ID
7. let voicemail take unimportant calls
8. Text when available
9. do not shout into your phone
10. Don’t drive and talk on the phone

I personally think that 7 and 8 could be perceived as somewhat rude. Texting is not appropriate in all situations and even if a call is not urgent does not mean that you should not answer. How do you know if a call is urgent unless you pick up the phone. I also think this list leaves out a few rules that others lists deal more effectively with.

Harriette Cole, author or How to Be: Contemporary Etiquette for African Americans and creative director of EBONY magazine
1. Avoid private chats in public situations
2. Don’t talk on your phone while driving
3. Don’t text while driving
4. Keep ring tone volume low
5. Don’t be the center of attention
6. Avoid other’s personal space (don’t talk on the phone too closely to another person)
7. Don’t use the cell phone on a date
8. Text for brief information
9. Do not text when you are with someone in person
10. Do not wear a headset when not in use

I think these rules are a lot more comprehensive than the first list. 8, like the 8 of the last list is questionable in my opinion. I guess you must evaluate how the other person wants to communicate. I personally find texting impersonal. I also have to pay per text message, so I appreciate when people call.

LIFESTYLES magazine did not have a 10 commandments list but here is some of their comments:
1. respect people’s public space
2. It’s okay to talk in public and on public transportation as long as you use a low voice – be discreet
3. Follow establishment rules (in restaurants etc) if they limits to cell phone use
4. Let the recipient know that you are on a cell phone in case you fade in and out
5. put your phone on vibrate in public so that you don’t bother people with your ring tone
6. Two people interviewed had different ideas of whether or not it was appropriate to answer the phone during a conversation

I have big problems with this list. I do not think that it is appropriate to have private conversations in a public place as long as you have a low voice. Everyone can still here every detail of your conversation. No one really wants to hear someone else’s phone conversation. I also think that using a phone in a restaurant or other public establishment is rude for the same reason – everyone can hear you.

4 is a little bit out of date. Most people know that when someone breaks up, they are on a cell phone. Cell phones are so ubiquitous that people are not alarmed if someone’s call is fuzzy.

5. Vibrations can still be heard. Especially when it is quiet – such as in church or in class (esp. during a test). Having the phone on vibrate can be rude in certain situations

I think answering the phone during a face-to-face conversation is the epitome of rudeness. I know a lot of people don’t feel this way, but when someone answers their phone and ignores me, I get ticked.

Here’s the final list from author Charlotte Ford.
1. Don’t talk in places where people are forced to overhear your conversations
2. Don’t have annoying ringtones
3. Turn off cell phones in public performances
4. Do not wear more than two wireless devices on your belt
5. Do not drive and talk on the phone
6. Do not wear an earpiece while with other people
7. Use a normal volume on the phone
8. do not grow too attached you your cell phone – don’t use it at home
9. Don’t try to impress people with your cell phone
10. don’t use a phone in a restaurant

Some of these rules, such as 2,4, and 9 seem to be the author’s personal pet peeves, but I suppose that they annoy a lot of people

I think the major theme in all of these articles was to respect other people’s privacy and right not to be forced to overhear your phone conversation. The authors all have slightly different notions of what this means.

Analyzing "The People We Become"

I agree and disagree with certain of Baron’s points. For the most part I think she has good ideas about how technology is affecting society but I think that she applies these ideas a little too broadly. I have chosen to analyze the section “Consequences of Being Always On” in the final chapters and have given my opinion about each section.

The Me Generation meets the Information Age: Personal Consequences
I completely agree with her that while people are “always on” and can be reached any time, any where, they are more isolated. I feel that I can’t say hi to acquaintances that I see on the quad because they are listening to music or on their phones. I feel slighted when I’m with someone and they pull out their phone to talk to someone else. They are ignoring me, a person that they are geographically next to, in order to connect to someone who isn’t physically around. Are they really connecting with anyone in this situation? I would argue no.

I agree that I feel exhausted and inefficient when I multitask with my computer. One of the reasons I gave up IMing is because I wasn’t getting anything done and had to spend more time doing less work because of technological distractions that I felt compelled to answer.

Knowing Right from Wrong – and Just plain knowing: Cognitive Consequences
I think that people are oblivious to the fact that the many texts, music, and other media on the internet do not belong to them. I distinctly remember in 9th grade during a debate when we argued whether Napster was alright. I was the only one in the class who did not illegally download music off the internet. They’re argument was, “Everyone does it? What’s the big deal?” I see no difference between this and stealing a CD from a music store. The same things goes for downloading anything from the internet. Unless the owner of that property specifically states that anyone can have it, downloading that information is, in my opinion, stealing. However, many people I know do not feel this way.

I’m Julie: the Social Consequences
I agree with certain parts of this section and disagree about others.

I do think that people use technology to avoid unwanted social interactions. However, I think there are some positive aspects to technology and how it defines our relationships with others. I agree with Baron that we have a lot more “weak ties.” How many facebook friends does everyone have? How many numbers in your cell phone? I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. People had weak ties before communication technology. Weak ties do not define our social interactions completely. Have more acquaintances doesn’t mean that you have less real friends. I do not think that people necessarily have less strong ties. Technology lets us keep in touch with people with whom we have strong ties. Society has changed with the advent of newer communitcation. It is expected that high school graduates will go away to college, sometimes far from home. People accept jobs away from their family and friends. Having telephones, email and other technologies allows people to keep in touch and retain those strong ties. With our highly mobile society, we need communication technology to keep in touch with those from which we move away.

Project Topic

Title: Cell Phone Etiquette
I am very interested in when and where people think it is appropriate to use their cell phones. I am always very shocked by behavior that I think is rude. I want to find out where and when most people think is appropriate to use cell phones and where it is impolite.

Procedure – conduct a survey to collect information on people’s cell phone use behavior and do additional research for studies already conducted.
Possible questions:
1. How many minutes do you use your cell phone for talking per day?
2. How many text messages do you send per day?
3. Where do you talk on your cell phone?
4. Where do you text on you phone?
5. Where do you keep the ringer on your phone ON?
6. Where do you turn your phone on vibrate?
7. Where do you turn your phone off/on silent?
8. Where do you think it is rude to talk on the phone?
9. Where do you think it is rude to text?
10. Where do you think it is rude if someone’s phone rings?
11. Where do you think it is rude if someone else’s phone vibrates?

After all the "where" questions, I intend to have this list of potential places to use a cell phone:
i. In class
ii. In church/religious services
iii. At work
iv. During meetings
v. In a group of friends when the call pertains to the group
vi. In a group of friends when the call does NOT pertain to the group
vii. At restaurants/public eating places
viii. Walking on the street
ix. In the car alone
x. In the car with another person/people
xi. On public transportation (buses, trains, etc)
xii. When in the same building as the person being called
xiii. When anyone is talking to you.


If anyone has any ideas of other questions that I should ask or other places/situations that I should add, please comment! Thanks!

Call or knock?

One part that struck me in the Matsuda article was the discussion on reducing chance encounters with people through telephones and later through mobile phones.

Matsuda says:
“Before the advent of the telephone, visitors used to show up at homes unannounced, but after the wide adoption of the telephone, it became impolite to make a visit without advanced notice. Through keitai, in a similar fashion, one fixes appointments and reduces chance encounters and spontaneous gatherings. Now people must always make conscious choices of whom to call and meet.” (p 134)

I thought this was very relevant to my own life. My mom always tells me that I should just walk to my best friend’s house unannounced, knock on the door, and ask her if she wants to hang out. My best friend from home lives less than a mile away and I see her almost every day in the summer and over breaks. We have been friends since gradeschool and so if there were anyone that I would just pop in on, it would probably be her. However, I would never just show up without calling first. I would consider that to be rude.

My mom doesn’t understand this. She always says that when she was a kid, they would always go to people’s houses unannounced. I think this shows an interesting change that has happened within the last thirty to forty years. I suppose my mom’s generation was one that grew up with telephones being relatively new in being widespread. There had not yet been the social change of calling before going to someone’s house. My generation seems to have been taught by society, not by our parents, that it is rude to just show up without previous plans.

Orwell would not approve of the Basilica's Petitions

I am the Liturgical Commissioner for Pangborn Hall. (I basically set up and clean up for Mass in the dorm). Our priest, Fr. Gary, and I read through the Basilica-issued petitions before mass and groan at the terrible way in which they are written. We cut most of the incomprehensible ones. This past week I realized that this is exactly the type of language that Orwell is talking about in his article “Politics and the English Language.” Obviously, the petitions are not political, but they suffer from the degradation of language that Orwell talks about. (I would just like to say that I mean no disrespect towards Catholics or the Basilica.)

Dying metaphors:
“For the Church, who gathers the families of the world to a plentiful table. May she continue to provide a feast of Word and Sacrament to all who come to her holy mountain”
It’s difficult to analyze metaphors used by the Church, especially when they are from the Bible, considering the text has been around for nearly 2000 years. I wouldn’t say they are dead metaphors. However, the person who writes the petitions does not need to draw from all the Biblical metaphors he/she can get her hands on. It makes the petition confusing and long winded. Here are the metaphors I picked out in this petition alone. It’s difficult to find out if we are praying for something real or metaphorical because of the great amount of metaphors.
“Gathers the families” – shepherd metaphor
“Plentiful table” – do they mean the Eucharist or a “table” of physical sustenance?
“She” – metaphor for the Church
“a feast” – similar metaphor to table metaphor – here it seems to be used as a term for the Mass
“holy mountain” – this can be a metaphor for sacred ground, possibly referring to Mount Sinai. Honestly, I have no idea what idea the writer is trying to get across.
The entire petition is metaphorical. This language makes it difficult to pick out what exactly we are supposed to praying for.

Operations or verbal false limbs:
“For all who work the fields. May those who till and plant be blessed in their labors.”
The second part says exactly the same thing as the first short part of the prayer. This sentence is made more than twice the length it needs to be just for the sake of symmetry. All petitions are padded in similar ways. The first few words tell the listeners who the petition is for. The second elaborate sentence repeats exactly what the first part said but in flowery, long-winded language.

Pretentious Diction –
“Let us pray for the Church. May she, through the example of her leaders, protect and nurture all the gifts brought forth from the Lord’s vineyard.”
“Protect and nurture,” “brought forth” and “Lord’s vineyard” are rather pretentious ways to say “ Let us pray that member of the Church use their gifts wisely.” This example is also very metaphorical.

Meaningless words:
“For Civil Leaders – for those who stand guard over the fortunes of the world, may they govern with the hands of justice.”
This entire petition is full of meaningless words. What does it exactly mean by “stand guard?” This could be anyone from the military, to presidents, to police officers, to bureaucrats, to high school hall monitors. It is extremely vague.
“Fortunes of the World” is again vague. Do they mean monetary fortune? Education? Peace? Crops? Oil? Natural resources? Children?
“Justice” is another meaningless word. Justice can take on an individual meaning for each person who hears the petitions.
These meaningless words make the petition completely unintelligible. Who exactly are we praying for? No one seems to know. The Basilica should write petitions that people can actually understand. I, personally, would like to know what I am praying for. I think most people just mumble “Lord, hear our prayer” without really knowing what they are praying for.

I would like to contrast the Basilica’s petitions with the prayers from the Sacrament of Annointing of the Sick that my parish did while I was home over fall break. Although these were not the petitions said at mass, the prayers printed in the program were in the form of petitions:

1. “Free them [those receiving the sacrament] from sin and do not let them give way to temptation”
2. “Assist all who are dedicated to the care of the sick”
3. “Give life and health to our brothers and sisters whom we lay hands on in Your Name”

These petitions are all extremely clear cut, especially in comparison to the Basilica’s petitions.

Fairclough and Swaziland news

For this assignment, I chose an article from the Times of Swaziland on a call from a member of Parliament to create political parties for Swaziland. The article can be found at "the Times of Swaziland" - http://www.times.co.sz/index.php?news=2013. Using Fairclough’s analysis of media, I found instances of presupposition, nominalizations, and foregrounding throughout the article.

It was very easy to pick out what was presupposed in the text because, as someone who is unfamiliar with the Swaziland government, certain things in the article did not make sense to me. The writer presupposed that the reader knows that there is both a king and a Parliament with elected members who are not part of political parties. However, it was somewhat confusing because the writer mentions already formed political parties when it would appear from the text that these parties are illegal. The writer references groups such as the African United Democratic Party, the Tinkhundla system, and the Southern African Development Community without explaining what these organizations do or what their legal status is. He presupposes that the readers are familiar with these groups. There is also a presupposition that the reader will be familiar with Swaziland geography. MPs are identified by the region that they are from such as “Ludzeludze” and “Lobamba.” I am unsure whether these are cities, regions, states or some other politically divided territory, but the Swaziland reader and writer evidently know what these mean.

Along with presupposition, the writer also makes use of what Fairclough terms “nominalizations.” Especially after the second headline in bold, the writer becomes vague and uses groups to become actors. For example, “Following a call by political parties for the new Parliament to enact legislation that would allow political parties to take part in the countries governance, the Times spoke to some MPs to hear what their views on the subject were.” Here, political parties are doing the action of “calling” for the Parliament to do something. Both political parties and Parliament are used here as an agent and patient, respectively. However, these are groups of people and cannot act or be acted upon in these sense that the author uses. He nominalizes these groups and makes something abstract seem to be concrete. This sentence has another nominalization when the author talks about “the Times” speaking to the MPs. The Times is a newspaper, an inanimate object, and cannot act on its own. The writer uses the “Times” as an agent when it is actually an abstract idea and not a concrete actor like a writer.

As an outsider reading the Swaziland news, I was also aware that the writer foregrounds the views of those who want political parties and does not include any information about the king or other politicians who do not want political parties. It can be assumed that these people exist considering that the politicians in the article are protesting and demanding the use of political parties. They must be protesting against the system that is already in place and everyone does not agree with the proposed change or else there would be no protest. Nearly the first page of the article is dominated by a politician named Khumalo who appears to be a leader in the fight for political parties. After the second bold headline, the article includes mostly nominalizations and vague language about those who also support political parties. The last two MPs who were interviewed both said that they would consult the people on the issue and had not made up their minds about whether or not to have political parties in Swaziland. No where in the entire article are the opinions of those that support the current system attention. Clearly, the writer is foregrounding the issue of political parties and is supporting the movement. The obvious absence of the one side of the story allows the writer to foreground the side that he supports.

Presuppositions, nominalizations, and foregrounding are all techniques that the Swaziland writer uses to give his side of the argument. Whether or not the writer consciously intends to support the political parties is unclear. However, his representation of the events favors one side over the other.

Luntz' rules and Palin's speech

I looked at the transcript for Sarah Palin’s statement at Ground Zero in New York and decided to compare it to the 10 rules for effective language that Luntz outlines. Here is the short statement which I found on CNN.com.

PALIN: “Every American student needs to come through this area so that, especially this younger generation of Americans is, to be in a position of never forgetting what happened here and never repeating, never allowing a repeat of what happened here. I wish every American would come through here. I wish every world leader would come through here, and understand what it is that took place here and more importantly how America came together and united to commit to never allowing this to happen again. And just to hear and from and see these good New Yorkers who are rebuilding not just this are but helping to rebuild America has been very, very inspiring and encouraging. These are the good Americans who are committed to peace and security and its been an absolute honor getting to meet these folks today.”

Rule One: Simplicity – None of the words in Palin’s speech are obscure or not readily understood.

Rule Two: Brevity: Use short Sentence – Palin’s sentences tend to be very long and complex. This speech contains only five sentences although the speech contains 139 words. This is an average of 28 words per sentence. These long, drawn out sentences make it difficult to understand her at times.

Rule Three: Credibility: Her words seem credible to me. Although I could not hear her speaking the words, the long sentences and repetition make it seem as though she was deeply emotionally affected by coming to Ground Zero. It is understandable that she would be.

Rule Four: Consistency – She repeats herself a lot in this short speech. However, it doesn’t seem like Luntz is talking about this type of consistency. It seems as if Palin is tripping over words as opposed to purposefully reiterating that we should never forget 9/11. However, she (along with pretty much every politician) is consistent in asserting that we should not forget the terrorist attacks on this country.

Rule Five: Novelty – Palin doesn’t really say anything novel in this speech. Not forgetting 9/11, America uniting after the attacks, and praise for New Yorkers’ response is more consistent than novel.

Rule Six: Sound and Texture: It is difficult to evaluate this because I have not heard the speech. There are points in the speech which are not grammatically correct but that might have made more sense in context with pauses, rhythm, and inflection. From the text alone, I would say that not much attention is paid to sound and texture. She does use repetition of words such as “repeat,” “come” and “America.” She also uses some parallelism in sentences 2 and 3 in saying that she wishes someone would come to the site.

Rule Seven: Aspirationally – This is what people want to hear. Everyone wants to hear that America came together and united after terrible attacks. Everyone wants to remember the victims.

Rule Eight: Visualize – There is some visualization – especially when she mentions not forgetting. The remembrance of 9/11 is something that is different for everyone and can be related to Luntz’ idea of “imagine.” The speech is not particularly visual.

Rule Nine: Ask a Question – no.

Rule Ten: Provide Context – it is obvious that she is standing at the base of Ground Zero, giving this speech. She doesn’t explicitly give the context but it is implied as being already known.

The score:
Rules used effectively: 1, 3, 7, 10
Rules moderately used: 4,6,8
Rules not used:2,5,9

Palin only used 4 of the rules effectively and three of the rules moderately. It seems as if this speech, therefore, according to Luntz’ rules is very mediocre. It is neither excellent nor absolutely terrible.

Linguistic Anthropology is everywhere

My friends and I went to Steak 'n' Shake over the weekend, and one of my friends decided to get a kid's menu to have something to do during the wait. Over half the games on the place mat were metalingual! It made me really excited! There was a word search; madlibs- a game where you fill in empty spaces in a story (they tell you to choose and adjective, noun, number, verb etc); a game where you have to find an item in the restaurant that begins with each letter of the alphabet; Scrambled letters that you had to unscramble to find words; and a few others;.

One things that I thought was interesting was that these games were all on a children's menu. All of these games have to do with drawing attention to words, spelling, or how words are used. The madlib game in particular was playing with grammar by changing words in a story with the same type of words. The story that was made was silly and nonsensical most of the time but some of the insertions actually made sense.

It is also interesting that these games were targeted towards children. However, most of these games appeal to a wider audience. There are word searches and scrambled words in newspapers that are targeted towards adults. On road trips my family plays a game where you have to find the letters of the alphabet in order on signs that you pass. In high school gym class, when my friend and I did not feel like participating, we would stand in the field and play a game where you have to create a list of items in alphabetical order, reciting the list that has already been made and then adding an item of the next letter of the alphabet in order.- Both these games are similar to the game at Steak 'n' Shake. It seems that metalingual games are all around as ways to pass the time and are not just for children.

Dickens and Orwell were on the same page

I'm reading David Copperfield for an English class and Dickens makes a comment about using verbose, ridiculous language. He says about the same thing that Orwell. I couldn't believe it when I read it this evening. What excellent timing! Dickens doesn't analyze this in an anthropological way. He instead makes a comment on how this use of language can get people into trouble, is meaningless and is generally silly. Throughout the book, Dickens uses a somewhat ridiculous character, Mr. Micawber, who likes to use over-the-top language (meaningless words, dying metaphors, extremely pretentious diction, and a lot of verbal false limbs) to show that this type of language is silly. In this passage, Mr. Micawber has just read a letter aloud that is in this language and the narrator, David Copperfield, comments on it. My comments are in brackets and in caps. Here's what Dickens has to say:

"Again, Mr. Micawber had a relish in this formal piling up of words, which, however ludicrously displayed in his case, was, I must say, not at all peculiar to him. I have observed it in the course of my life, in numerous men. It seems to me to be a general rule. In the taking of legal oaths, for instance, deponents seem to enjoy themselves mightily when they come to several good words in succession, for the expression of one idea;[VERBAL FALSE LIMBS] as, that they utterly detest, abominate, and abjure or so forth [PRETENTIOUS DICTION]; and the old anathemas were made relishing on the same principle. We talk about he tyranny of words, but we like to tyrannize over them too; we are fond of having superfluous establishment of words to wait upon us on great occasions; we think it looks important, and sounds well. As we are not particular about the meaning of our liveries on state occasions, [MEANINGLESS WORDS] if they be but fine and numerous enough, so, the meaning or necessity of our words is a secondary consideration, if there be but a great parade of them. And as individuals get inot trouble by amking too great a show of liveries, or as slaves whenthey are too numerous rise agaisnt their master, so I think I could mention a nation that has got into many great difficulties, and will get inot many greater, for maintaining too large a retinue of words." (David Copperfield, Dickens, ch. 52. p 758-9 in the Penguin edition.)

It is interesting that Dickens comments on how people in legal and political professions use this over-the-top language. We discussed the use of vague rhetoric in politics. Dickens also seems to think that this type of language gets people into to trouble and will continue to get the country into trouble.

As an English major and a fan of Dickens, I have to defend one of my favorite authors from Orwell's accusations. I know some people have a grudge against Dickens because they think that just because he got paid by the word he added extra, superfluous words. I would like to refute this. Dickens was paid to fill up certain amount of space in a monthly magazine. He wrote his novels in installments and planned out the novels to be at certain points at the end each installment. Therefore, there are places were he had to add passages to meet his length requirements. I don't think that Orwell would have accused Dickens of this degraded type of language. Dickens uses very original metaphors and descriptions, and, though his sentences are complex, they don't use a lot of passive voice, pretentious diction, or verbal false limbs.

It is interesting that this type of "degraded" language has been around for quite a long time. David Copperfield was written in 1849-50, nearly 100 years before Orwell wrote about the degradation of language. I think linguistic anthropology has made us aware of a type of rhetoric that has been around for a long time.

Politics and the English Language - on the web

I found these few short paragraphs from Barak Obama’s official site. This is his outline of the problems in the US military. According to George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, there are many instances of “Bad English” in this paragraph.

"A 20th Century Structure for 21st Century Problems: We have inherited a national security structure that was developed and organized in the late 1940s to win the Cold War. It remains a rigid bureaucracy of government agencies, relying upon a restrictive and disconnected set of legal authorities.
New Leadership and Vision is Needed: America simply cannot afford more of the old approach to our national defense. Instead, it needs a Commander-in-Chief with the right combination of judgment, vision, and leadership for the 21st century.
A Military Under Strain: Currently, our soldiers, seamen, airmen and Marines are deployed around the globe, working valiantly to defend our nation. Yet, these heroes are under-resourced and asked to do too much by a policy that has too often taken their sacrifice for granted. Due to their incredible courage and ingenuity, they persevere, but at incredible cost to themselves and their families.
Recruitment and Retention Problems: A country of 300 million strong should not struggle to find enough qualified citizens to serve. Recruiting and retention problems have been swept under the rug by an administration that does not understand the value of service to our nation.
A System Not Serving our Troops as Well as They Serve Us: As the shameful events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the recent reports on growing numbers of homeless and unemployed veterans show, we simply are not taking proper care of our wounded warriors and veterans.”

Here are the major categories that Orwell lists and examples from the text:

Dying Metaphors: There weren’t too many dying metaphors “America simply cannot afford” seems to be used by every politician. It plays to the commercial sentimentality of Americans. “Swept under the rug” is also a hackneyed phrase. It seems that something that can be “swept under the rug” is of minor importance.
Operators or Verbal false limbs: There are a few passive voice sentences in this paragraph. Ex: “asked to do too much by a policy” and “problems have been swept under the rug by an administration.” I don’t see a lot of padding in this example, but the writers are obviously trying to sum up the problems of the current administration as succinctly as possible.
Pretentious diction: There were a lot of words that seemed to be a bit “dramatic” to me. These words had connotations that were too strong, in my opinion, for the paragraph. Words like, “restrictive” “disconnected” “valiantly” “heroes” “incredible” (used twice), “ingenuity” “persevere” and “warriors” all see over the top and pretentious.
Meaningless words: There are a lot of meaningless, vague words. For example: “It [America] needs a Commander-in-Chief with the right combination of judgment, vision, and leadership.” This is extremely vague and doesn’t give any particular information. Everyone has judgment – that doesn’t mean it’s good or bad. “Vision” also if vague. Vision of what? This vision is not defined and the reader can not tell if his vision coincides with the writer’s vision. “Leadership,” again, is vague and open to the reader’s interpretation. There is leadership in every presidency and in every government. That doesn’t mean it is good leadership or that the leaders are qualified to lead. Dictators, school teachers, pastors, rectors, and anyone in any type of authority position could say that they have the right combination of “judgment, vision, and leadership.” This phrase is meaningless because it has no specific definition that can be understood by everyone who reads it.
Every single person can take these vague ideas and make them into their vision of what a good president should be. These words are purposefully vague to attract the greatest number of people. Other meaningless, vague words include: “old approach” “qualified citizens,” “recruiting and retention problems,” “under-resourced,” “asked to do too much,” “taken their sacrifice for granted,” “persevere,” “incredible cost,” “shameful events,” “recent reports,” “growing numbers,” and “not taking proper care.”

Synaesthesia

The article I presented in class today was on Synaesthesia, which i found really interesting. One thing this article brought to mind was modern poetry. Poets are always describing things as "tasting green" "smelling smooth" or "feeling orange." In one of my English classes, we talked about this as a figure of speech, also called synesthesia. That brought to my mind a question relating to Professor Blum's comment that synesthesia became "popular" in the early 1900s. (I might have gotten that date wrong.) I thought that the popularity of synesthesia might be related to the use of the synesthesia as a figure of speech by popular poets around this time. In particular, I thought of Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" [also known as "Song of Myself] published in the mid 1850s which, if I remember correctly, contains a lot of unusual imagery and synathesia. Emily Dickinson, writing about the same time (1860s), also used surprising comparisons, often with synesthesia:

Example From: "I heard a fly buzz when I died"
With BLUE uncertain, stumbling buzz,
Between the light and me;
And then the windows failed, and then
I could not see to see

She describes a fly's buzz as being "blue." I wonder if these poets had synesthesia or if they were merely influenced by the popularity of synesthesia of the time.

As I was looking for examples of synasthesia in poetry at this time period, I came across an article that seems to have answered my own question: "Theorist of the evolution of human consciousness were also apt to regard the rapid increase in synasthesia [in literature] brought about by both the intensive scientific search for new cases and the popular fad of affecting synasthesic perception, as evidence that it was a newly emergent...trait [in literature]."

I found this quote in: Bright Colors Falsely Seen By Kevin T. Dann. http://books.google.com/books?id=dxxX9qAnRVsC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=walt+whitmans+synesthesia&source=web&ots=dhIoaXtOEZ&sig=gWm7xURClVZDVmkauuxe3h-g3FM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result


I think it's interesting how trends in one area affect trends in other areas - for example: science influenced literature which influenced public awareness and fads about synasthesia.

Comedy and audience

I was flipping through the channels looking for a comedy show, and I came across the Soup on E! The host, Joel McHale, has just done a show on the Notre Dame campus last weekend, so I decided to watch. There were a few notable differences between the show that he did here and the show on TV. I thought Beeman’s point about analyzing audience’s previous knowledge and culture and Bauman’s point about performing for the particular audience could be applied to both of McHale’s comic performances. At Notre Dame, McHale made a lot of jokes about football, especially about the other team, San Diego State. Everyone would boo when he mentioned San Diego State. Then he would tease the audience about our viewpoint that ND is the only school worth going to. His subject matter also included his family, celebrities, and other performances that he had done. On TV, he only made fun of celebrities. His audience on TV expects him to mock celebrities and not to talk about ND football. The station pays him to only talk about celebrities, TV shows, and mishaps in the media. He plays to a particular audience.

One interesting thing about the TV show is that I could not tell if he was performing in front of a live audience or if they were playing a laugh track on the TV. It seemed like there was an audience because he would pause to let them laugh where he expected them to laugh. He also made an unintentional mistaking, saying “beauty pageant explode children” and then corrected his statement to “exploit children.” The audience laughed at this error. Presumably, everyone in a live audience who came to see the show would know of the show and would want to be there. I thought things might have been a little different at ND. I heard quite a few people on the quad say that they did not know who the comedian was but decided to come anyway. I thought this made it more challenging for the comedian because he wasn’t necessarily playing to a fan-based audience as he normally is in the studio. There also seemed to be times when he mis-judged the audience. Some of his crude or political jokes were not well received by a majority of the audience. When this happened, he made a joke about himself or the audience such as “Okay, no more killing-baby-seals jokes, but lighten up, people.” He laughed off his own mistakes in humor and continued with the show.

Speech Event

This saturday at 6:30 AM I was awaken by a speech event going on out in hallway. The Freshmen Orientation staff was running through the halls screaming for the freshmen to get up so that they could make them run around campus before the game.

I'm not sure if I completely understand all of Jakobson's and Hymes' points about speech events but I'll give it a try:
Jakobson identifies 6 parts of a speech act: In this instance, the addressers were the screaming orientation staff and the addressees were all the sleeping freshmen. The addressers did not seem to mind being overheard by additional addressees that they were not trying to contact - i.e, the rest of the sleeping dorm. The context was the dorm on Saturday morning; the code was English; The Contact was the sound of their voice.

I was a lot more confused about the 6 functions of language that Jakobson (and later Hymes) points out: Emotive, conative, referential, poetic, phatic, metalingual.
These are their definitions as far as I can understand. I will also relate them to my example if I can.
1. Emotive: The speaker's attitude towards the subject. The freshmen orientation staff seemed very excited and enthusiastic to be up and waking others up.
2. Referential: giving information to another party. The f.o.s. gave instructions to the freshmen - get up, get dressed, and meet in the lobby.
3. Conative - (not sure...) How the speaker addresses the listener - i.e. whether in a command, question, statement, etc. In this example: the speaker were using commands.
4. Poetic - (not sure...) the form that the message comes in; if it gives entertainment from the way the words sound.
5. Phatic - communicating for the sake of communicating. - they continued to repeat the same information again and again. This did not seem necessary as I am sure that everyone was awake. They seemed to be using phatic communication or perhaps to continue the emotive function.
6. Metalingual - talking about language - doesn't apply to example.
7. Contextual - (not sure...) what something means to people in a certain situation. Out of this context, the message would not make sense.

Derrida and intention

In my English class last year we read a little bit about Derrida and his deconstructionist theories. Hall describes his work in literary theory where he argues that only the text is important and not the author's intentions. This made me think of applying this theory to written sources such as email, text messages and even blogs like this one. I have to disagree with Derrida and say that in real life (outside of academia) people are always analyzing the each other's intentions when it comes to written electronic communication. Just this weekend my friend become very stressed out by an ambiguous text message. She kept saying "What does he MEAN by that?" What are a person's intentions when he or she decides to send an email vs. text message vs. a public facebook message. These are all questions that I hear other students talking about on a day to day basis. It seems that in real life situations, intention is often more important than the actual words.

Austin also talks about the importance of intention in Speech Act Theory. Infelicities can occur in performative utterances when a person does not have the right intentions behind those words. It seems like the intention behind the words is what makes a promise a promise, a marriage a marriage or a threat a threat. Once again, words can not be disconnected from the intentions of the speakers or writers because language does not occur in a vaccuum.