What I like about this analysis (57 page PDF) of the phenomenon of 'dog whistles' is that it embeds it into the idea of linguistic practice as (in part) characterizing a community. A 'dog whistle' is "speech that seems ordinary but sends a hidden, often derogatory message to a subset of the audience." The author provides several examples. The question is, is it a dog whistle only if the speaker intends it to be a dog whistle. Anne Quaranto argues that dog whistles can be unintentional, but conditions apply. "Covertly coded speech is only possible because there's something a speaker and hearer are both part of - a linguistic practice, an established usage learned from others and shaped by others' past performances." We see this a lot in the community not just in the form of dog whistles but also as memes, popular expressions, abbreviations, slang, and many other forms. The idea that we're all speaking 'one common language' with mutual understanding and shared meaning is, to my mind, wrong. Image: Vox.
Today: 0 Total: 13 [Direct link] [Share]
