Tag: power dynamics

The Linguistic Switcheroo: Navigating Style-Shifts in College Discourse

Dead Poets Society (1989)

This blog entry explores the dynamic world of language use among college students at UCLA, focusing on how they adjust their linguistic style in academic environments. We delve into the phenomenon of style-switching, where students navigate between informal conversations with peers and formal interactions with professors. Through careful observation and analysis, our research uncovers the nuances of word choice, tone, and syntax in these differing contexts. We aim to understand how social settings influence language socialization within academic communities. Our findings reveal that students tend to employ a more casual, slang-infused language among peers while adopting a more structured and formal language when engaging with faculty. These findings highlight the adaptability of linguistic practices within differing contexts, as seen in the discrepancy between a languid and relaxed setting versus an academic one, and reveal deeper insight into the social dynamics at play. Join us in exploring the intricate play of language in the college setting, where each conversation reflects the complex interplay of social norms, power dynamics, and cultural identity.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction

Our research focuses on the intricate ways college students adjust their language in different academic settings, particularly at UCLA. Previous studies, like those by Patricia A. Duff and others, have highlighted language socialization in academic contexts. However, there’s less focus on how students’ language shifts in real-time interactions between diverse groups such as peers and professors. We aim to bridge this gap by analyzing how UCLA students’ word choice, tone, and syntax vary when communicating with peers versus academic staff. Our hypothesis posits that students’ language becomes more informal, slang-heavy, and less complex in peer interactions compared to more formal, carefully structured conversations with faculty, reflecting underlying power dynamics and social norms.

Here’s a link to a video by Cambridge University Press that explains “academic language” to give you an idea of what we’ll be discussing in this blog!

Methods

In our study, we centered our investigation on the linguistic style shifts among UCLA students in academic contexts. Our focus was on two primary interaction scenarios: between students themselves and between students and their professors.

People and Contexts Observed:

  • Student-Student Interactions: Conversations among peers, both within and outside classroom settings, were recorded. These interactions provided insights into the informal communication styles prevalent in peer groups.
  • Student-Professor Interactions: We also observed and recorded interactions between students and faculty members. This setting offered a contrasting view of more formal and structured communication.

What We Analyzed:

  • Word Choice: We paid close attention to the vocabulary used in different social settings. Our analysis focused on identifying the use of informal language and slang among peers, compared to more formal and academic language in interactions with professors.
  • Syntax and Structure: The complexity of sentence construction and use of grammatical structures were analyzed to observe variations in formality and complexity.
  • Tone: The emotional and attitudinal aspects of speech, such as enthusiasm, respect, or hesitation, were observed to understand the relational dynamics in different interactions. Take a look at this video to better understand the importance of how we say things, beyond what we say.

Data Collection Method:

  • A mix of participant observation and ethnographic fieldwork was employed. This involved walking with, talking with, and recording the daily life and conversations of students. Both audio recordings and hand-transcriptions of conversations were utilized.

By focusing on these observable elements in communication, our study aimed to illuminate how linguistic practices are adapted to different social contexts within the academic environment. Technicalities not central to our primary analysis, such as detailed linguistic theories, were omitted for clarity and accessibility to a general audience. This approach ensured that our study remained engaging and understandable, while still maintaining academic rigor.

Results

Here is what some of our data ended up looking like:

Student-Student Conversation

Student 1: Yeah, the bystander effect. It’s like, when there’s a bunch of people, everyone thinks someone else will step up. Ends up with no one helping. Pretty messed up and craaaazy.

Student 2: That’s tea. It makes you wonder, huh? Did you guys then talk about how different countries do things differently?

Student 1: Oh yeah, it’s all about the culture vibe. Like, some places are all “pick me girls,” while others are like “No worry girly.” (laughing)

Student 2: No literallyyyy. Social psych’s got some real “shit” going on.

Student-Professor Conversation

Student: In the lecture, you mentioned the bystander effect. Can you explain more on that?

Professor: Oh yes I can. So, the bystander effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. It’s often due to a fear of responsibility, where the bystander assumes someone else will intervene.

Student: I see. So how does this relate to social responsibility?

Professor: Hmm social responsibility is an individual’s obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. So like in the context of the bystander effect, it challenges the individuals to overcome the fear of responsibility and take action when they witness someone in need of help.

Student: Oh ok I get it. And last question (slight haha) what about the role of culture in social psychology?

Professor: So culture plays a significant role in shaping our social behaviors and attitudes. Different cultures have different norms and values, which could influence how people perceive and interact with each other. Like for example, individualistic cultures might emphasize personal achievements, while collectivist cultures focus on their group harmony.

Student: OK I got that down. Thank you so much for your time, Professor!

So what does this tell us?

These two conversations, both of which cover the “bystander effect” of social psychology, show completely different ways of having very similar conversations. Even though both conversations cover the bystander effect, and in each one the speaker is asking questions while one is answering and explaining, the language used is very different.

The use of slang in the student-student conversation – words like “tea,” “craaaazy,” and “literalyyyy” – are not present in the student-professor conversation. This suggests that students are perfectly capable of discussing academic topics in the way they ‘typically’ speak – with friends and in their social interactions, but they are intentionally censoring themselves and electing for “academic language” when speaking with professors.

The fact that the professor, here, is not speaking with the same total academic language, and still uses phrases such as, “so like” and “hmmm,” suggests that they do not feel the same sense of need to maintain formality in the way the student does. This shows us that despite the absence of reciprocal formality within student-professor interactions, when speaking with a faculty member or professor, the student still understands their position in this conversation as relatively powerless and more subservient.

In analyzing syntax and structure, we found conflicting conclusions in students’ willingness to formalize their speech around professors versus their peers. In conversations with peers, students tended to include longer sentences that more frequently lacked correct grammatical structure and syntax as ruled by academic standards of speech. However, these sentences were more truncated and were often shortened to mere phrases that included only enough to communicate a simple idea. In contrast, students’ interactions with the professor included simpler sentence structure, yet more grammatically correct. Student 1’s use of the phrases, “Ends up with no one helping” and “Pretty messed up and craaaazy” as well as Student 2’s response later in the conversation, “No literallyyyy” highlight this phenomenon. By standards imposed through academia’s use of American Standard English, all of these examples would be considered incorrect grammatically and incomplete in syntax. They all lack subjects and therefore rely on the context surrounding it with the conversation being had in order to correctly interpret their meanings. These examples can be contrasted with the student’s interactions with the professor, in which all sentences are complete and use academically correct syntax structure. The students’ sentences are more concise in their lack of filler words and slang, and yet grammatically more correct. This again, may point to power imbalances within these two interactions – students may feel less willing or comfortable to talk extensively with professors than with peers due to the perceived power imbalance, as well as feel more restricted in their expression, as is reflected in the formality of their structure and syntax.

The last aspect of speech we analyzed was a difference in tone. In comparing the two examples provided, we found that student to student interactions included a more playful tone, similar to banter, while the student to professor interaction held a more professional tone, lacking in comfort and familiarity. When the student talked to their peer, the two indiscriminately contributed to the conversation without self-consciousness, providing multiple affirmations and adding onto the points already stated. However, in the conversation between student and professor, the student’s conversation largely comprised of a quick and simple affirmation that they were listening to the professor’s speech, followed by another quick and concise question. The discrepancy between these two interactions again highlights the students’ need to adjust their manner of speaking due to their social status. As the student interacts with individuals with a wider gap in social standing, their speech reflects that change in the comfort at which they are capable of communicating with their counterparts.

Key and Peele, Comedy Central (2012)

Discussion and Conclusion

Academia is just one locale in which this linguistic phenomenon can be recognized. The same linguistic changes that we noticed between students speaking with fellow students, and students speaking with professors appear elsewhere. There is a palpable power dynamic between professors and students, which is reflected in the changes in word choice, syntax, and tone of students we recorded in each conversation group.

Other relationships with a similar power dynamic – for example, manager-employee or parent-child – would see similar shifts from the ‘lower’ positioned speaker’s standard casual mode of communication, and the way they communicate in these partnerships. Even more pertinent social commentary can be drawn from the linguistic-change patterns detected in our research. Power relations that result from socially constructed hierarchies, like racial differences, gender differences, or more specific circumstances like interactions with police officers, demonstrate similar linguistic changes.

This phenomenon suggests that linguistic patterns and tonal choices are not only reflections of existing social strata and power relations but are simultaneously contributing to the establishment and maintenance of these strata. Our research, therefore, both reflects and contributes to the existing literature on the interactions of linguistics and social power dynamics, via this case study on academic communication.

References

Alkhudair, R. Y. (2019). Professors’ and Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward the Use of Code-Switching and Its Function in Academic Classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(6), 160-. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n6p160

Costa, J. (2015). Can Schools Dispense with Standard Language? Some Unintended Consequences of Introducing Scots in a Scottish Primary School. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12069

Davydova, J. (2022). The role of social factors in the acquisition of vernacular English: A variationist study with pedagogical implications. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12438

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language Socialization into Academic Discourse Communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(Mar), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000048

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through Interactions: Testing a Developmental Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in over 4,000 Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616

Hutton, S. (2022). The burden of code-switching: U-M LSA U-M COLLEGE OF LSA. U. https://lsa.umich.edu/lsa/news-events/lsa-magazine/Summer-2022/the-burden-of-code–switching.html

“I’m Retired.” Key and Peele, Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, season two, episode four, Comedy Central, 2012.

Poola, V. P., Suh, B., Parr, T., Boehler, M., Han, H., & Mellinger, J. (2021). Medical students’ reflections on surgical educators’ professionalism: Contextual nuances in the hidden curriculum. The American Journal of Surgery, 221(2), 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.09.003

Sicoli, M. A. (2010). Shifting voices with participant roles: Voice qualities and speech registers in Mesoamerica. Language in Society, 39(4), 521–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000436 

Weir, Peter. Dead Poets Society. Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, 1989.

Woodbridge, A. (2021). “If I’d Heard That Earlier, It Would Have Changed My Academic Experience”: Connections Between Language Brokering and Undergraduate Academic Writing  / by Amy Woodbridge. University of California, Los Angeles.

[/expander_maker]

All Jokes Aside – Indexing Gender and Race in Stand-Up Comedy

Ammi Lane-Volz, Cate Dark, Ava Kaiser, Grace Shoemaker, Alex Farfan

As playful and harmless as something titled “comedy” can seem, the political and cultural implications of what is deemed funny are not insignificant. From stand-up performance to jokes around the water cooler, comedy is used as a tool to socially bond, establish hierarchy, critique global affairs, and index identity. Our project set out to explore how stand-up comedians index their identities through mimicry, contrast, and slurs, specifically focusing on how they index themselves as part of versus separate from gendered and racial groups. We studied the specials of ten stand-up comedians from the Netflix series The Standups to see if they more often tended to align their identities through references to their own demographics (in-group indexing) or through references to outside groups (out-group indexing). We found several patterns that emerged, including higher instances of non-white comedians mentioning their race (three times more often), 60% of which consisted of in-group indexing. We also found the opposite to be true for gender, with men referencing gender almost twice as often as the female comedians, 55% of which consisted of out-group indexing. These patterns invite several follow-up questions on the different tactics comedians use when writing their sets and how their choices might be influenced by their place in society and membership of different social majority or minority groups.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

Comedy holds significant cultural influence, serving both as a mirror reflecting societal norms and as a tool for challenging them. We identified a notable gap in research relating to how stand-up comedians utilize their demographic backgrounds. A study done on representations of race and gender within Comedy Central programming found that although the channel has made an effort to expand its brand by employing more female and racially diverse comedians, the type of jokes found within these skits reinforce power dynamics and white heteronormative masculinity (Marx 2016). Another study on stand-up comedy and cultural spread argued that stand-up comedians are able to reinforce and/or challenge existing cultural stereotypes through their sets, both within the comedic monologues themselves and in the audience’s minds (Yus 2002). Based on this research, it is evident that a comedian’s own demographic information, specifically gender and race, can play a role in the creation or reinforcement of stereotypes in comedy. Yet none of these studies discuss the ways in which comedians index their own demographics. To fill this gap, we wanted to answer the question of how comedians navigate indexing their identities by looking at the frequency of in-group versus out-group demographic references and how these references connect to broader social contexts.

Methods

For our analysis, we chose to look at ten thirty-minute stand-up specials from seasons two and three of the Netflix series The Standups. Each episode of this show focuses on a different stand-up comedian. Comedians from this show are of moderate acclaim, meaning their sets are polished (i.e. representative of a “standard” professional stand-up comedian) but the researchers and the general public may not know the comedians by name. Choosing specials from this show allowed for some standardization of the audience and venue, and provided us with a broader view of multiple professional stand-up comedians than just analyzing one or two longer specials.

Each researcher looked at two randomly chosen specials and noted each time that a comedian mentioned their own identity demographic (race, gender, sexuality, political affiliation, class, and age) and each time they made a comparison to another demographic. These comparisons included strategies like direct comparison or mimicry of another demographic’s accent or physical mannerisms. We also noted each time a comedian said a slur related to their own identity demographic and each time they said a slur related to a different demographic. Based on our preliminary data, we decided to whittle down our focus from the six demographic categories mentioned above to just race and gender. Within these categories, we split them into white vs. marginalized racial identity and men vs. women, respectively. It is also important to note that our sample was evenly split in terms of gender (five men, five women) and race (five white comedians, five comedians of color).

Data and Analysis

Using the data we collected for each comedian, we generated the following figures that summarize our findings:

Figure 1: Total Number of References Made by Each Comedian to Their Own Demographics
Figure 2: Total Number of Comparisons Made by Each Comedian to Another Demographic

As seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2, comedians tend to reference and compare their gender and race significantly more than age, class, sexuality, or political affiliation. Using this information, we were able to narrow our analysis to focus on this key demographic data.

Figure 3: Total Number of Male Vs. Females References to Gender

Figure 3 demonstrates that male comedians were much more likely to reference gender to index their identities, with comparison to another gender being the most common reference type.

Figure 4: Total Number of White Vs. Racial Minority References to Race

Figure 4 indicates that racial minority comedians referenced race about three times more than white comedians, with references to their own race being the most common reference type. 

Figure 5: Average Intersectional (Race and Gender) References to Gender

Figure 5 indicates that white men were about two times more likely to reference gender than any other demographic combination.

Figure 6: Average Intersectional (Race and Gender) References to Race

Figure 6 shows that minority men were three times more likely to reference their own race than any other combination of race and gender.

Figure 7: Total Number of Slurs Related to Comedian’s Own Demographic
Figure 8: Total Number of Slurs Unrelated to Comedian’s Own Demographics

Figure 7 shows the large majority of self-referential demographic slurs were race-related, as Black comedians tended to use the n-word multiple times in their sets. Figure 8 shows that out-group related demographic slurs were slurs related to gender and other demographics; none were race-related.

Raw Data

anthroling comedy data

Discussion

Based on our data and outside research, the frequency with which comedians index their race and gender within their sets may be linked to a few different social phenomena.

The finding that white men are more likely to index their gender identity in their comedic routines may suggest that male comedians feel compelled to incorporate their gender identity into their comedy routines, or that they find this to be more socially acceptable than women. This could reflect broader gender expectations where men are often encouraged to assert their masculinity or draw attention to their gender in public spaces (McVittie et al., 2017). Racial minority comedians’ tendency to reference their minority status could indicate a desire to confront stereotypes, draw attention to racial issues, or establish a unique comedic identity. This could stem from personal experiences of marginalization or a sense of responsibility to address racial dynamics in their performances (Sullivan et al., 2021). Additionally, the observation that power dominant demographics (white, men) more commonly used comparison than their marginalized counterparts could imply that those in positions of power feel more comfortable using comparison as a comedic tool. This could be because they have greater societal latitude to freely express themselves without fear of repercussions (Tobore, 2023). By using comparison, minority comedians risk reinforcing existing power dynamics and societal hierarchies where masculinity and whiteness are considered the norm. For a minority comedian, refraining from such comparisons can be a way to affirm their own racial or cultural identity without centering whiteness as a point of reference. Finally, the fact that gendered slurs were employed by out-group comedians, while race based slurs were only used by in-group racial minority comedians suggests a greater societal awareness or sensitivity towards racial issues than gender issues. This may stem from a recognition of the historical and ongoing harm caused by racial slurs (Wilson, 2020). Overall, our findings underscore how the comedy stage becomes a microcosm for broader societal interactions and power relations. The act of indexing one’s identity in comedy can serve as a means of negotiating power, identity, and belonging within a societal context that is stratified along lines of race, gender, and sexuality.

In general, comedy does not merely reflect the social order but actively participates in its construction and perpetuation. The comedian’s role in creating a “social contract” with the audience, wherein their narratives and identities are validated, highlights the performative aspect of social identity and the power of narrative in shaping reality. The audience is also not merely a passive receiver of comedy; they have agency in choosing where to laugh and where not to laugh. They are then an active participant in the co-creation of the comedic experience and, by extension, the social norms and power dynamics it reinforces or challenges.

Conclusion

This research underscores the potential of comedy as a site of social commentary and critique. While comedy can perpetuate stereotypes and power imbalances, it also holds the potential for subversion. Comedians who are aware of the power dynamics at play in their performances can use humor to challenge societal norms, question stereotypes, and imagine new ways of being.

In framing our findings within the broader context of power relations, language, and agency, we contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of comedy in society. This opens up important discussions about the responsibilities of comedians and audiences alike in shaping the social discourse through humor. It also suggests avenues for further research into how comedy can be used as a tool for social change, by both reinforcing and challenging the status quo.

References

Marx, N. (2016). Expanding the brand: Race, gender, and the post-politics of representation on Comedy Central. Television & New Media, 17(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476415577212

Miller, T. (Producer). (2017-2021). The Standups [TV Series]. Netflix. https://www.netflix.com/browse?jbv=80175685

McVittie, C., Hepworth, J., & Goodall, K. (2017). Masculinities and health. The Psychology of Gender and Health, 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-803864-2.00004-3

Sullivan, J. N., Eberhardt, J. L., & Roberts, S. O. (2021). Conversations about race in black and white US families: Before and after George Floyd’s death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106366118

Tobore, T. O. (2023). On power and its corrupting effects: The effects of power on human behavior and the limits of Accountability Systems. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2023.2246793

Wilson, C. (2020, October 4). N-word: The troubled history of the racial slur. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53749800

Yus, Francisco. (2002). Stand-up comedy and cultural spread: The case of sex roles. Babel A.F.I.A.L.. special issue on humour studies. 245-294. https://personal.ua.es/francisco.yus/site/Afial.pdf

[/expander_maker]