3621:2024:10
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
3621:2024:10 [2024/01/15 23:14] – Ryan Schram (admin) | 3621:2024:10 [2024/04/28 18:19] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ~~DECKJS~~ | ||
====== Week 10—Communication as commodity production ====== | ====== Week 10—Communication as commodity production ====== | ||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
We return to an earlier topic of communicative labor and explore the connections between discourse and capitalist economies. | We return to an earlier topic of communicative labor and explore the connections between discourse and capitalist economies. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ## Language must be used—Speaking implies a speaker and addressee | ||
+ | |||
+ | Let's return to some concepts we encountered early on. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Every utterance takes place in a specific here and now, and will to some extent index that here and now. | ||
+ | |||
+ | > An essential (constitutive) marker of the utterance is its quality of being directed to someone, its addressivity. As distinct from the signifying units of a language—words and sentences—that are impersonal, belonging to nobody and addressed to nobody, the utterance has both an author (and, consequently, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | > addressivity, | ||
+ | |||
+ | When language is used, it brings into being the *I* of its speaker and the *you* of its addressee. | ||
+ | |||
+ | All utterances have a degree of indexicality that depends on the here and now of its production, and this includes its *I* and *you*. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This relationship is reversible. The speaker and addressee of an utterance come into being as subjects in being posited by an utterance (see Benveniste 1971a, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ## And yet a speaker always uses other people' | ||
+ | |||
+ | And yet, as Bakhtin also writes: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > [T]here are no “neutral” words and forms—words and forms that can belong to “no one”; language has been completely taken over, shot through with intentions and accents. For any individual consciousness living in it, language is not an abstract system of normative forms but rather a concrete heteroglot conception of the world. All words have the “taste” of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour. Each word tastes of the context and contexts in which it has lived its socially charged life; all words and forms are populated by intentions. (Bakhtin 1981, 293) | ||
+ | |||
+ | We come into being by speaking, but there are no words that belong to no one when we do. There is no such thing as "your own words" | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## Important terms related to this topic | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Genre | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Voice, figure of personhood (Bakhtin 1981, Agha 2005) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Participation framework (particularly, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
===== References ===== | ===== References ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Agha, Asif. 2005. “Voice, Footing, Enregisterment.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1): 38–59. https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ———. 2023. “Bullshit Genres: What to Watch for When Studying the New Actant ChatGPT and Its Siblings.” //Suomen Antropologi: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Benveniste, Emile. 1971a. “Subjectivity in Language.” In Problems in General Linguistics, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ———. 1971b. “The Nature of Pronouns.” In Problems in General Linguistics, | ||
Blum, Susan D. 2009. //My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture//. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. https:// | Blum, Susan D. 2009. //My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture//. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. https:// | ||
Line 19: | Line 70: | ||
———. 2023. “Bullshit Genres: What to Watch for When Studying the New Actant ChatGPT and Its Siblings.” //Suomen Antropologi: | ———. 2023. “Bullshit Genres: What to Watch for When Studying the New Actant ChatGPT and Its Siblings.” //Suomen Antropologi: | ||
+ | Goffman, Erving. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of Talk, 124–59. Philadelphia: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Irvine, Judith T. 1996. “Shadow Conversations: | ||
Jones, Deborah A. 2021. “Writing Without Fear—or Bylines: Freedom and Frustration Among US American Ghostwriters.” In //Work, Society, and the Ethical Self: Chimeras of Freedom in the Neoliberal Era//, edited by Chris Hann, 1st ed., 7:258–77. New York: Berghahn Books. https:// | Jones, Deborah A. 2021. “Writing Without Fear—or Bylines: Freedom and Frustration Among US American Ghostwriters.” In //Work, Society, and the Ethical Self: Chimeras of Freedom in the Neoliberal Era//, edited by Chris Hann, 1st ed., 7:258–77. New York: Berghahn Books. https:// |
3621/2024/10.txt · Last modified: 2024/04/28 18:19 by 127.0.0.1