In Class at IUP: "Dude" through the lens of Linguistic Anthropology 

I had no idea linguistic anthropology was a real study!!! Its just what ive been calling my interest in linguistics cos i cant concentrate enough to learn a new language, lol. This is dope!

Ahh I didn't want it to end... a nice professor makes a nice group!

I'm Indonesian. It feels good to be mentioned: 12:22 masculinity for Indonesian elderly men :-)

Wow! I've been picking up on these things before but I never knew it had a name.

I love the teacher. She's so cute. This is the kind of teacher I would like to have:

Love the information, but the first thing that came to mind was the movie line (or could be the title?) Dude, where's my car!?

I like the iPhone point of view on how the teacher shows indexicality.

Awkward camera dude at 2:53...

AmazinG Lecture.......!!!

Words are not things. Nor we are what we think we are or others are. These are mere approximates, our brain's mapping. Reality is an abstraction seen through the lense of our nervous system. Naming sb dude does not make him one. If I think to myself 'This guy overuses the word dude', this does not make this guy an idiot. The thing is we attach meanings to concepts and words and then we feel hurt, happy etc. Words trigger the thought process and consequently an emotional response. I disagree term masculinity changes with a fashion like dude. Male, female, androgyne are archetypic words with a lot of meaning attached to them on the subconscious level. They are as ancient as we are. Dude is a fashion, it came and it will go. Masculinity is here to stay as is feminity. No matter what you do to language. Those aren't only temporary linguistic constructs like dude. If that class (an abstract) was so clever (as teacher said), they'd contest. They got manipulated into another concepts instead.

Is there full course of genetic engineering lecture series?if yes than please post it.

Dude, they did not just say social distance..... they had no idea covid 19 was coming and that phrase would have a whole global pressing meaning in 6 years!!

This is rad dude!

I did not expect this to turn into a lecture on views of masculinity lol

The "urban" girl is wowzerssss lol!

Dude! I enjoyed the lecture.

someone keeps slapping the microphone. Headphone wearer's beware

This lecture was very educational; I learned a few things. And it reminded me of: imgur.com/gallery/AhQ3O

All those," *use it to* communicate _________" in talking about how non-referential communication gets communicated, this makes it sound like a concious, choice-making approach to non-referential stuffs is the default, the unmarked -- that trying to take conscious agency over more than the linguistic attempts to work with the referential, is simply a thing that happens whenever anyone speaks. Why have I heard , in-person and online, the few anthropolgy professors I've heard, always using this, '...use it to...' in describing what non-referential stuff is communicated? Is it normal to always be like... so concious of the outgoing non-referential stuff? enough to make it the unmarked , the default? the closest ideas I can remember, those which are connected to a default state of concious shaping of what non-referential information you present, are A) three faces is Japanese Culture, where it's, in more contexts, viewed as useful or compassionate, to put up a community-oriented smoothing of one's self-presentation, or B) in places like US, where someone who conciously works much at all to take agency over the non-referential parts of their attempted communication, they are often seen negatively, as someone who's always putting-up a front -- in a lot ofcontexts, attempts to choose how you speak, are assumed to be muddying, a symptom of fear and bad habits, or to likely be intended for selfish and sneaky goals in trying to manipulate the listener. Anyway, the examples were just to ground that shaping one's presentation isn't necessarily a, 'good or bad' thing. I'm fascinated that senteces like, "we use language *to* communicate non-referential stuff"---'to' implying intention---has come up, without stopping to clarify or complicate, from multiple professors talking about linguistics

DUDE !!!

A good example of this now is "girl/gworl"

Facebook

dude

Is she claiming that all masculinity is a social construct?