Even though all three articles that we read this week are products of completed research, I cannot but go back to our last discussion about articulating a research question, which brings me to square one: why was the research done? Point 2 on Professor Cece’s slide 4 reads “it is not trivial”. I recall most of us agreeing that this meant the research was of importance to society, and that what was researched online made a difference in the world offline, even though the line separating the online and the offline is rather blurred. In order not to be trivial, the research had to show the impact that Computer Mediated Communication made on our social practices and how those shaped the way we understand the world around us. In my opinion, of the three articles assigned for this week, only two comply with the requirement.
Cutler’s research on the employment of Scottish accent(s) in movies shows YouTube commentators’ attitudes towards language varieties. In this research YouTube serves as a space for discussing the indexicality of the accent, its social meaning, its attractiveness, its association with authenticity and, as a result, its commodification. Thus the negotiation online has an effect offline: Scotland is viewed as an attractive, pristine, almost fairy-like country and the Scottish as reliable, authentic, and genuine. YouTube comments facilitate the spread of language attitudes and solidify the sense of appeal with which certain varieties (such as Scottish) are associated.
Ensslin too offers an insightful analysis of how a combination of semiotic modes in computer games – language being one of them – makes an impact on the gamers’ understanding of gender and race. Being rather inconspicuous, an accent can contribute to the general picture (most often highly stereotypical) of an avatar, ascribing features of race or social status without explicitly showing them. Ensslin’s methodology is based on the theory of fractal recursivity, through which different varieties of language are being ascribed to different social and ethnic groups, this way alienating them from the concept of “self”. The research suggests that the use of standard vs non-standard varieties of English in computer games reinforces stereotypes and influences the way certain linguistic communities can be seen based on the linguistic features of that particular variety.
Ivkovic’s article, even though meticulous and packed with numbers, remains descriptive, as it fails to articulate the importance of his research. I am willing to be convinced otherwise during our discussion in class, but I believe that Ivkovic should have included fewer numbers and more discussion on what they mean. As far as methodology is concerned, I am surprised by the choice of BNC (British National Corpus) as a control mechanism. According to Ivkovic, “[l]anguage- related lexical items are not inherently linked to the ESC. Hence, their presence in the corpus may be interpreted as salient.” Quite the contrary, language is and has always been a point of discussion in the ESC. The contest has a history of language regulations and disqualifications of contestants based on their language choice, so it is only natural that language is a prominent topic in discussions related to the ESC. Even though this probably does not affect the results of Ivkovic’s research, I believe it is a point worth making. Having read Cutler and Ensslin’s articles, which are very articulate about the significance and meaning of their research, I can understand how Ivkovic’s research is important, but I still believe that it lacks deeper analysis of the results.

Even though all three articles that we read this week are products of completed research, I cannot but go back to our last discussion about articulating a research question, which brings me to square one: why was the research done? Point 2 on Professor Cece’s slide 4 reads “it is not trivial”. I recall most of us agreeing that this meant the research was of importance to society, and that what was researched online made a difference in the world offline, even though the line separating the online and the offline is rather blurred. In order not to be trivial, the research had to show the impact that Computer Mediated Communication made on our social practices and how those shaped the way we understand the world around us. In my opinion, of the three articles assigned for this week, only two comply with the requirement.
Cutler’s research on the employment of Scottish accent(s) in movies shows YouTube commentators’ attitudes towards language varieties. In this research YouTube serves as a space for discussing the indexicality of the accent, its social meaning, its attractiveness, its association with authenticity and, as a result, its commodification. Thus the negotiation online has an effect offline: Scotland is viewed as an attractive, pristine, almost fairy-like country and the Scottish as reliable, authentic, and genuine. YouTube comments facilitate the spread of language attitudes and solidify the sense of appeal with which certain varieties (such as Scottish) are associated.
Ensslin too offers an insightful analysis of how a combination of semiotic modes in computer games – language being one of them – makes an impact on the gamers’ understanding of gender and race. Being rather inconspicuous, an accent can contribute to the general picture (most often highly stereotypical) of an avatar, ascribing features of race or social status without explicitly showing them. Ensslin’s methodology is based on the theory of fractal recursivity, through which different varieties of language are being ascribed to different social and ethnic groups, this way alienating them from the concept of “self”. The research suggests that the use of standard vs non-standard varieties of English in computer games reinforces stereotypes and influences the way certain linguistic communities can be seen based on the linguistic features of that particular variety.
Ivkovic’s article, even though meticulous and packed with numbers, remains descriptive, as it fails to articulate the importance of his research. I am willing to be convinced otherwise during our discussion in class, but I believe that Ivkovic should have included fewer numbers and more discussion on what they mean. As far as methodology is concerned, I am surprised by the choice of BNC (British National Corpus) as a control mechanism. According to Ivkovic, “[l]anguage- related lexical items are not inherently linked to the ESC. Hence, their presence in the corpus may be interpreted as salient.” Quite the contrary, language is and has always been a point of discussion in the ESC. The contest has a history of language regulations and disqualifications of contestants based on their language choice, so it is only natural that language is a prominent topic in discussions related to the ESC. Even though this probably does not affect the results of Ivkovic’s research, I believe it is a point worth making. Having read Cutler and Ensslin’s articles, which are very articulate about the significance and meaning of their research, I can understand how Ivkovic’s research is important, but I still believe that it lacks deeper analysis of the results.