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

What's it like to take class at IUP? See for yourself! In Dr. Anastasia Hudgins' ANTH 233 Language and Culture class, students learn about referential and non-referential indexicality by examining the type of people who use the word "dude."
Hear students' reactions this lesson: • IUP Student Reactions ...
Find out why Dr. Hudgins chose this lesson: • IUP Anthropology Profe...
Learn more about the Department of Anthropology at IUP: bit.ly/1oGamhS
Lesson on "Dude" was inspired by research and publications by Scott Kiesling: www.pitt.edu/~k...

[@atxmic25]

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!

[@luisandregw]

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

[@hopkinsonevil]

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

[@theshamanrapper]

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

[@dareangel96]

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

[@sajidullah7109]

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

[@clintburns7106]

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!?

[@dougd120]

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

[@spencerchristensen5766]

Awkward camera dude at 2:53...

[@alcovefib]

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.

[@pluviophile1988]

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!!

[@rabindrakhatiwada3558]

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

[@pluviophile1988]

The "urban" girl is wowzerssss lol!

[@KRAPYBARA84]

This is rad dude!

[@pluviophile1988]

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

[@jeszone]

Dude! I enjoyed the lecture.

[@patientred3203]

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

[@KoreyPelton]

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

[@sinnamon-troll84]

someone keeps slapping the microphone. Headphone wearer's beware

[@joeandcoffee]

DUDE !!!

[@dummyaccount.k]

dude

[@AngelicaMarlee]

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

[@hjsingh2599]

Facebook

[@algoristhq1282]

Is she claiming that all masculinity is a social construct?