Monday, October 31, 2005
Part of what's interesting here is to see, just from a quick glance, that there's some differing terminology from what the CMC lit uses, which is likely a product of the disciplinary framework (or is it?) - e.g., "Advanced Information Technologies" instead of "Information and Communication Technologies." I'd like to get a better handle on this kind of differing terminology and how it indicates that we're conceptualizing things/operationalizing concepts.
(Also, I feel I should stress that I don't always have red and black hair, nor do I wear corsets and poofy skirts. Just in case your snooping included clicking some recent LJ cuts.)
so here's a predicament - following rae, i submitted proposals to the pop culture conference. i sent one to the area on language ideologies and pop linguistics, and one to the area on internet culture. the site gave the impression that this was kosher, as long as you accepted to present at one or the other.
so five hours (!) after submission, i'm accepted into language ideologies and pop culture. should i also get into internet culture, i'm left with a moral dilemma. it would be nice to network with internet researchers and talk linguistics, just as it would be nice to network with linguistic researchers and talk internet. we're all somewhat interdisciplinary here - i'm sure this applies to the anthropologists and the communication theorists and the educuation specialists just as much.
we can't always do both - any thoughts on, you know, picking sides?
and never speak of it again.
Then again, if it's "pop linguistics," they might already be well-exposed.
so there are real good points here, and it looks like i'll be getting my pop linguistics on in hotlanta then. if rae's livejournal presentation is happening while i'm there, i'll definitely show up and talk shit about that.
i had my abstract on 'conversational closings as dispreferreds in CMC' sitting out in the open in our department lounge today, and was kind of surprised at how many of the other students got excited over the thought of internet linguistics and actually had stuff to say about it. mostly personal anecdotes and the like, but some scholarly comparisons. it was, well, refreshing to actually talk about some of these things in real life.
i think rae's right that these studies won't take long to become more mainstream - it seems like much more active research is being done at the student or recent-grad level than by published scholars. i'm placing bets on it sorting itself out noticably in the next decade.
Josh, you are really good at providing reasoned perspective on all of these things. I agree it depends totally on institution and, from what y'all say and what I've heard from others at some places, there is support out there - it's just a matter of finding it. As for whet studying the internet will become commonplace for linguistics, I'm not sure - supported and acceptable, probably moreso, but I think there'll still be big resistance to it. Internet is already a decently big deal in sociology, for instance, but linguistics as a field seems special simply because of the restricted focus it's seen in so much of the past decades (and theoretical infighting). I mean, the main thing of course is that's CMC is not SPOKEN speech and never will be (not the stuff most of us are interested in, anyway) which is why for the same reason, we find it terribly interesting and others don't.
i think that sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists will be able to get away with it, and to have their work recognized as scholarship, but we are working in the minority here. by calling it a move towards the mainstream, i'm referencing more a setting where people will accept the work for what it is, not one where everyone's doing a dissertation on l33t.
AND OMG LAUREN YOU TEAHC TAP?
i agree completely with josh - our department actually calls that perspective 'sociocultural linguistics', where you combine the theoretical and methodological aspects of sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and various forms of socially-oriented discourse analysis into one framework.
Links to this post: