Notes

  • 1. The majority of Chesebro’s questions are not “linguistic” questions, as such, given the volume’s grounding in communication and rhetoric studies (Livia & Hall 1997; Queen 2014). Chesebro’s question 2 is the only one to speak to issues directly relevant to distributional sociolinguistics.
  • 2. Though beyond the scope of this brief review, it is important to note that the constructionist model has also long had a foothold in linguistic anthropological work on sexuality. See, e.g., Hall & O’Donovan (1996); Hall (1997, 2005); Kulick (1998); Gaudio (1997, 2009); Besnier (2002, 2004); Boellstorff (2004, 2005); Leap & Boellstorff (2004).
  • 3. Eckert uses the concept of personae as a more locally relevant alternative to “identity,” which she argues tends to refer to a “reified locus of iterability” (Eckert 2002: 102). In other words, “identity” and “identity categories” are ideological constructs that circulate in the social space (e.g., “woman,” “gay,” and “Buddhist”). Personae, in contrast, represent somewhat more holistic presentations of self that, while they may certainly draw on a number of different identity-linked stereotypical associations, cannot be reduced to any one “identity” (see also Podesva 2007).
  • 4. There is a great deal of discussion in the literature about the extent to which Bourdieu’s framework actually allows for agency and, subsequently, for social change. These arguments are beyond the scope of our discussion here, though see Ahearn (2001) and Crossley (2003) for details. We assume an interpretation of Bourdieu’s theory that allows for the operation of individual agency.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >