Call#: Van Pelt Library DD256.5 .N359 2002
This speech of Joeseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda, is filled with just that—propaganda. Goebbels does acknowledge Germany’s military defeats, though. Specifically, when he mentions the defeat of Stalingrad, he is overly positive and tells the German people that this defeat was actually a good thing because it would unify Germany, ultimately strengthening the country. This specific example shows how Goebbels takes even the most seemingly negative thing such as a military defeat and turns it into a positive for the Nazi cause. He compliments the German people while he rallies them to support Germany. He assures the people that Germany has endured many crises and can endure this one and thrive again. These difficult times will build virtue in the German people. Goebbels informs the people of the bleak military situation, so that they understand the magnitude of the situation and will be moved to help the war effort. He states that the German cause is noble, in that as Germans, it is their duty to protect the world from the failed Bolshevik ideology that surely would have swept through Europe had Germany not stepped in. Germany did initially underestimate the strength of their enemy, the Soviet Union. Goebbels continually reminds the German people that to win Germany needs the full support of its citizens. Goebbels concludes his speech by rallying the people with a series of ten questions. One example is that he asks whether the German people believe in victory. Obviously, the people answer with a resounding, “YES!” He ends his speech with a last appeal to the German citizens for patriotism.
This speech shows the importance of the support of the citizens. Joseph Goebbels was in charge of rallying the people’s support, and this speech is one concrete example of how he did so and its importance. The Nazis needed the support from the people in order to win the war, and Goebbels used this speech in an attempt to do so. Generally, though, Goebbels employed film as his primary tool for propaganda. This speech was a direct appeal to the people. In contrast, film appeals to the people in more subtle ways. Because of its subtlety, film is a very effective propaganda tool. The film Kolberg, for example, also calls on the citizens to help with the war effort. This film does so indirectly through the use of a historic example, the battle of Kolberg. The efforts of the average citizens is pivotal in the battle of Kolberg. The importance of the average citizen in history was meant to inspire people to do the same thing for WWII. Goebbels spent so many resources on this film because he felt that this support from the people was necessary to win; however, Goebbels got carried away with the project, wasting many needed resources. In the end, the film was useless because it was not released until the war was practically already lost.
Katz also examines the realm of digital sampling, but he does so with a keen detective’s eye, looking at the practice from the outside-in. He uses three case studies to show the main uses and techniques employed with digital sampling. First of which is a “song” created by Paul Lansky with recordings of human voices speaking random words entitled “Notjustmoreidlechatter.” The complicated issue of speech and music is addressed through this first instance of sampling and Katz identifies the specifications and implications of either one. Secondly, he compares two pop songs, Camille Yarbrough’s “Take Yo’ Praise” and Fatboy Slim’s “Praise You,” which uses bits of the former in its creation of the latter. Finally, he breaks down the numerous sampled bits in Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” Public Enemy’s strong political message coupled with the nature of his samplings creates one of the most powerful sample-ridden songs of contemporary music.
Katz only does so after first clarifying with the reader what exactly sampling is. This definition has been found in the majority of the sources, but none went on to detail the legal issues as well as Katz. He also goes on to explore the question of originality and immorality in terms of remixing and sampling. Nevertheless, his case studies have proven most useful in determining the full extensions of digital sampling in music and his insight into its effect on music today. He also lightly touches on the various effects parodies have upon the original work, if any, and acknowledges the complexities within the industry when it comes to approval for such works. This book could possibly be the best source found thus far, seeing as it is not overly specific in its subject matter, yet it explores enough topics in a reasonable level of detail to be reliable.
tagged camille_yarbrough copyright copyright_act creative_commons digital_sampling fatboy_slim international_copyright_law morality music music_industry notjustmoreidlechatter paul_linsky phonorecords piracy public_enemy remixing sampling speech by minglet ...on 25-NOV-08
Krolokke begins her essay by recapping recent research in gender and language in cyberspace, including the role of "grrrls" who specifically resist male domination. She then describes her study of 5 MSN channels of Internet Relay Chat (IRC): gay chat, lesbian chat, transgender/transsexual chat, politics2000 chat, and African-American chat for what she calls "playful chat". She analyzes the transcribed speech for 4 types of language play: abbreviations, paralinguistic cues, hybrid language, and insulting speech. Krolokke uses performance theory to explain gender play online such that she considers "linguistic gender" to mean performing a speech pattern that follows social and cultural expectations or stereotypes associated with the speech of that gender. She explains that in some cases, "IRC provides a space for participants to play out their most convincing performances of parodic linguistic identities." As such, she provides an argument away from earlier linguists who argued about the inherent differences in male/female communication and towards later "third wave" linguists who see all communication and all contexts as marked for gender, not the speaker him or herself.
In this article, Bromseth discusses his research into 2 Norwegian email lists: Radical Forum (a socialist/Marxist forum) and The Doctor's List (a forum for general practitioners) in which the membership was divided approximately 85% men and 15% women. While the political group tended towards confrontational discussion and raw polemic, the medical forum was characterized by face-saving strategies and an emphasis on "brotherhood". Bromseth argues that the latter behavior should not be seen as "feminization" of male speech, but rather as an example of positive and definitively male social practices in modern (2001) Norway. To him, gender is constantly being constructed in relation to other social phenomena and contexts must always be examined independently to show such construction without stereotyping behavior. This argument runs in counter to the generally accepted thoughts towards men's speech and should definitely be considered as a reminder to readers to not make generalized assumptions based upon previous theories, but instead, to take into account mitigating cultural and social factors when analyzing any speech community.
While I may never actually cite this reference in my work, I think it is a valid reference for email in 1998. While Baron does not focus on gender in email communication, she seeks to provide a history of email and how it linguistically differs from both spoken language and other forms of writing. She puts forth an interesting theory that email could be considered a "creole" language, citing linguistic evidence of "pidgins" that have a highly restricted set of communicative functions while they function as a lingua franca, which matures into a creole as a second and third generation of native speakers grow up in the linguistic community. Since email is less than 40 years old, time will tell if the language used in email will become its own standard with grammar and conventions, or whether it will continue to creolize and adapt to the technological changes of its electronic medium.
Gefen and Ridings, both local Philadelphia scholars, begin by recapping women's and men's sociolinguistic patterns of discourse as prior discussed in the literature. They hypothesize that women, more than men, will wish to both receive support from and give support to a virtual community in which they are participating. In addition, they hypothesize that such support will influence women's assessment of the quality of that virtual community, and that women will more constantly than men rate their virtual community as having higher quality. They surveyed 39 discussion boards, which they divided into men's, women's, and mixed boards. As to be expected, women more than men were found to go to discussion boards for support. One of the interesting results they found is that the men surveyed also sought rapport and support, but did so more often in men's-only communities, presumably where an expectation of common language would be held, and did not rate them lower in quality, even though rapport-seeking can be considered as indicating inferior social status among men according to past sociolinguistic studies. When the men did seek rapport in mixed-gender groups, it did not affect their assessment of the board's quality because there was an expectation of rapport-seeking inherent in the mixed-gender environment, since women were present and rapport-seeking is a characteristic of women's speech. The authors admit that even as they tried to control for gender-bias in the chosen bulletin boards, that some of the communities were specifically support/rapport based (eg. cancer support) and that may have skewed the data towards women's speech and away from men's speech.