distorting reality

I thought it was interesting to learn how language can shape reality. The way things are worded and the descriptions given about certain situations affects the way that we think of them. I thought one of the best examples was with the rape trial. The defendant was not lying with the statements he made, but by not assigning blame it completely changed how everyone viewed what happened. Instead of saying "I did something," he said "Something happened," which is still the truth, but it makes it look like both parties were responsible.

Another example I found interesting was the writer's strike. Depending on who was "offering" and who was "demanding," one side looks like the bad guy and one side looks like the good guy, when really the words are interchangeable for both parties involved. When you think about it that way, it makes it hard to decide whose side you should be on.

What both examples show is that if you use the correct language, you can alter a situation to make it appear the way you want it to, and you can still technically be telling the truth.

Critical Discourse Analysis

I found the American hospital websites that we saw in class on Thursday interesting. We saw both a for profit hospital and a non profit hospital and both of them had a section on there about their finances and how much they pull in each year. Then we looked a European hospital website where there medical care is free over there, and there was not mention about money. I would have never thought twice about that because its a naturalization here in America.

I also found the KKK website kinda humerus, because you would expect it to be really hateful but they used a good choice of words and had it looking all friendly. You can even go get your authentic KKK t-shirt or hat, but my favorite one was the little figurine of a KKK guy all dressed up in his bed sheets, and for an extra $10 you can get his eyes lit up. And remember they want to spread a message of "love not hate". They really just want to spread the love with the fellow white man, and hate everyone else. It makes me understand on how people can get involved with and institution like that, they have you thinking that it is a really friendly concept.

"Political Talk" is aggravating

One of the most frustrating forms of language ‘naturalization’ is within politics. The discourse used in governmental positions is shrouded in both ideological and historical background. The source of political discourse lay in the hands of those who wrote the constitution and the time period in which it was practiced. Even during this time period however, I believe that this type of political discourse was created to keep others out of federal government decision-making. Furthermore, it has created a barrier between ordinary people and those in government. Those who contributed in the creation and debate of democracy were well educated, upper-class white men. And although the constitution proved to benefit the people in which it was written for, it is disproportionate in the benefits given to the authors themselves.
The early debate between Federalist and Anti-federalists was fraught with disagreement about the potential of ‘ordinary’ people to participate in government decisions. Some of the most renowned founders can be cited, referring to the masses as “ A bewildered herd, fraught with fleets of passion, and incapable of making rational decisions.” And although the constitution revolves around those revered phrases such as “By the people, for the people”, the overhanging power is most certainly within government. This hidden ideology is very much apparent in today’s democracy. The very people who are supposed to actively participate are feeling powerless and insignificant.
Perhaps that reason for this is due to a lack of understanding. When I turn on the television and listen to C-Span for example, I am sometimes confused by what they are talking about. And although I understand both current issues within government and the general system in which it functions, sometimes I feel like I’m listening to another language. It is obvious that people who hold governmental positions are well educated people, with this comes an elevated ability to utilize this ‘language’ in order to function within the system. But when everyone within this institution is speaking in a way that they understand one another, it does not mean that people outside of it can. How can people be expected to participate if we cannot understand one another on an agreed plane of dialog? If citizens wish to be active and aware of political working, they must first understand the lingo.
My assertion here, is that the type of dialect used within the political realm is purposefully used as a tool to keep power above the people. Furthermore, it has been naturalized within society to mean nothing more than “political talk”.

The KKK is not A-okay

In class, I was very surprised how the KKK used language in their website. To me, the KKK is both a backwards, and very wrong organization. I thought their website was interesting because I was expecting it to be very outwardly racist, which we saw was not the case. Instead, the website tried to present the organization as spreading faith and love. It gave me a bit more understanding of why some people are see this group in a different way then I. Since the group represents themselves as spreading "love" and "a Christian way of life" children brought up in this world, do not see this organization as innately evil. The language used in the website is naturalized to many of these followers. They don't think of the group's message as wrong or backwards. They see it as spreading love to their fellow (white) man. This is interesting to me, because I've been brought up to believe looking at the KKK in any type of positive way as preposterous. It is not naturalized for me to hear words like "love" and relate them to this group. Unlike their members, I cannot accept their words as truth, but as simply a load of crap. It is strange for me to realize there is an entire group of people for whom it is natural to think of this group in a positive way. I thought the website was a great example of the way institutions use discourse to control the way people think.

Legal Documents

On Thursday we took a look at a legal document and talked about it a bit. I just wanted to point out a few more things on this type of discourse. People always wonder why it is so hard to interpret the meaning of these documents. This is exactly why they are confusing, to keep someone down from elevating to the same level as "The Man" as someone put it in class. Confusing people with in this way allows the writer or institution to maintain their authority over the common people. So in my opinion discourse is a type of force even though it isn't physical if know how to use your knowledge as an advantage.

Post 3--Critical Discourse Analysis

This week, we started talking about a direction that some discourse analysis has taken into critically looking at how language use (discourse) intersects with issues of power, ideology and social institutions. It's not a particular 'method' like Ethnography is, but is rather an approach, or a purpose for the analysis.



We discussed issues of how language use organizes concepts of reality, how different discourses compete with each other to determine reality, how institutions maintain control through discourse and how ideologies are 'naturalized' through discourse.



In this blog, I want you to explore any of these concepts that you find interesting, confusing, irritating, etc. These can be big ideas, so I just want to provide some space for general exploration of them. Have at it!



Thanks,

Tiffany

ethnography

Ethnography of speaking

SPEECH IN COGNITIVE AND EXPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
In the study of ethnography , presumably three things will hold true: 1. the discipline of linguistics will continue to contribute studies of the history, structure, and use of languages; 2. in other disciplines, linguistic concepts and practices will be qualified, reinterpreted, subsumed, and perhaps sometimes re-diffused in changed form into linguistics; 3. linguistics will remain the discipline responsible for coordinating knowledge about verbal behavior from the viewpoint of language itself.

In our concern is the role of phonological habits in the perception and interpretation of sounds, there exists an abundance of theory, technique, and experimental work. The concern is the role of semantic habits in perception and interpretation of experience, there is no such abundance. Some experimental testing has been done (see comment in Hymes 1961b), but we cannot adequately investigate the role of semantic habits in ordinary behavior without knowledge of the semantic habits that are available to play a role, and such knowledge can be gained only by description in relation to native contexts of use. In other words, we need a semantic analysis that is a part of ethnography.As a narrative reflection of reality ethnography requests for a structural analysis, achieving the economics of the rules of a grammar in relation to a series of analyses of texts. As we can see from our texts we saw two different reflections of the speaking. One is a closest community (church members in specific region South London) and another is a examples of the phenomena as a “Kros” definition of the New Guinea. Different kinds of the interactions, lingustical expressions (as an semantical level). How do social-cultural expectations reflect on the speech and behavior people. As the closest ties of the definitions of the mental system in the anthropological view. How is it different from our lingustical behavior in the class? Freedom of the speech, however politeness and official expression, following the main topic of the class theme. All that 3 variable lingustical situations give as a good observations about ethnography and relation ethnography with psychology and anthropology.

ydenysen