Thursday, October 13, 2005

the hot hardcore.

so going on that penultimate discussion string, are there any thoughts about perceived speaker identity versus actual speaker demographic? i've never come across this in face-to-face interaction studies, though i'm sure it must have been looked at before - maybe in considering the omnipresence of heterosexuality in queer linguistics?

Comments:
worst subject line ever.
 
are you talking about whether there have been studies that have looked at whether or not people are able to guess who's behind the screen?
 
I def. remember a study or two about perceived speaker identity (this is offline I'm talking about), where students were played the same voice but with different accompanying images of women of different ethnicities, and their language was rated differently depending on what they looked like...not sure if this is what you're talking about. And I can't remember who did the study.

Two things about your last sentence, Joshua:

1. [considering [[the omnipresence of [heterosexuality in queer linguistics]]]? or [considering [[the omnipresence of heterosexuality] [in queer linguistics]]]???

[[[[[[[]]]]]]]][[[[[[[]]]]]]geez that's fun.

2. I'm reminded of an article by Jenny Sunden in which she uses the term "heterotextuality."

ps - TGIf'ingF.
 
we're such dorks

:(
 
well, not exactly guessing who's behind the screen - more like when speakers assume who's behind the screen, and the effect this actually has on the discourse.

i remember hearing about those blind taste test studies on women and ethnicity, and psychologists and sociologists have done similar studies based on pictures of women in a whole slew of settings ("let's give the woman a tattoo! let's make her wear a suit!") to determine how those affect perception. so sure, a few studies having people guess the age/gender/sexuality/whatever of their interlocutor based solely on their speech style could be interesting in terms of how language ideologies work within CMC. i'm more interested in the affect that assumed perceptions of one's interlocutor have on both speakers during talk-in-interaction, especially when that perception isn't true to real life. you know, how each speaker accomodates (or flat out doesn't accomodate) the other because of this.

real life. we really need a new term for that.
 
josh, that wouldn't have been nearly as dorky if you hadn't included your texan sad face.
 
1. [considering [[the omnipresence of heterosexuality] [in queer linguistics]]] - (best. research paradigm. ever.)

2. heterotextuality! jenny sunden is my new hero. any idea which article that came from?


friday nothing. i'm on fall break. and i'm out.
 
Sundén, J. (2002). “I’m still not sure she’s a she”: Textual talk and typed bodies in online interaction. In P. McIlvenny (ed.). Talking gender and sexuality (pp. 289-312). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 
ps - best subject line ever.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?