Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Culture and Society
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.244–266

Digital media communication, intellectual property, and the commodification of language

The discursive construction of fansub work

 | National University of Singapore
Focusing on fansubbing, the production of unauthorized subtitles by fans of audiovisual media content, this paper calls for a more serious sociolinguistic analysis of the political economy of digital media communication. It argues that fansubbing’s contentious position within regimes of intellectual property and copyright makes it a useful context for considering the crucial role of language ideology in global capitalism’s expanding reach over communicative activity. Through a critical analysis of Korean discourses about fansubbing, this paper considers how tensions between competing ideological conceptions of fansub work shed light on the process by which regimes of intellectual property incorporate digital media communication as a site for profit. Based on this analysis, the paper argues for the need to look beyond the affordances of digital media in terms of translingual, hybrid, and creative linguistic form, to extend our investigations towards language ideologies as a constitutive element in the political economy.
Keywords: fansubbing, political economy, intellectual property, copyright, language ideology, South Korea
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Fansubbing and the political economy of digital media communication
  • 3.The Korean “subtitle crisis” and conditions of market formation
  • 4.Affectivity, morality, and the figure of the devoted fansubber
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.19001.par
References (53)
References
Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Milton Park: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Block, D. (2013). Social class in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: On sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. (1996). Shamans, software, and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Callahan, M. (2017). I am because I own vs. I am because we are. In M. Callahan & J. Rogers (Eds.), A critical guide to intellectual property (pp.70–95). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2005). Communication and commodification: Global economic change in sociolinguistic perspective. In G. Erreygers (Ed.), Language, communication and the economy (pp. 9–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condry, I. (2010). Dark energy: What fansubs reveal about the copyright wars. Mechademia, 51, 193–208.Google Scholar
Coombe, R. J. (1998). The cultural life of intellectual properties: Authorship, appropriation, and the law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2017). Trans-national English in social media communities. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dent, A. (2010). Flouting the Elmo necessity and denying the local roots of interpretation: “Anthropology’s” quarrel with ACTA and authoritarian IP regimes (PIJIP Research Paper no.3). Washington, DC: American University Washington College of Law.Google Scholar
(2012). Introduction: Understanding the war on piracy, or why we need more anthropology of pirates. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(3), 659–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, A. (2014). Sociolinguistics and mobile communication. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dovchin, S., Sultana, S., & Pennycook, A. (2015). Relocalizing the translingual practices of young adults in Mongolia and Bangladesh. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 1(1), 4–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, T. (2012). Fansub dreaming on ViKi: “Don’t just watch but help when you are free.” The Translator, 18(2), 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Errington, J. (2001). Ideology. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture (pp. 110–112). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Flew, T. (2014). New media: An introduction (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. (2011). Foundations of critical media and information studies. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gal, S. (2015). Politics of translation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gramling, D. (2016). The invention of monolingualism. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holborow, M. (2015). Language and neoliberalism. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Language, commodification and labour: The relevance of Marx. Language Sciences, 701, 58–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inoue, M. (2011). Stenography and ventriloquism in late nineteenth century Japan. Language & Communication, 31(3), 181–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Intellectual Property Office. (2015). International comparison of approaches to online copyright infringement: Final report. Newport: Intellectual Property Office.Google Scholar
Itō, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, danah, Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., … Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Kapczynski, A. (2010). Access to knowledge: A conceptual genealogy. In G. Krikorian & A. Kapczynski (Eds.), Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property (pp. 17–56). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (2011). Participatory media fandom: A case study of anime fansubbing. Media, Culture & Society, 33(8), 1131–1147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobato, R., & Thomas, J. (2015). The informal media economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
McElhinny, B. (2010). The audacity of affect: Gender, race, and history in linguistic accounts of legitimacy and belonging. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 309–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosco, V. (2009). The political economy of communication (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, J. S. (to appear). Translating culture in the global workplace: Language, communication, and diversity management. Applied Linguistics. DOI logo
Park, J. S., & Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction: Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, J. S., & Wee, L. (2012). Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language policy in a globalizing world. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-González, L. (2012). Amateur subtitling and the pragmatics of spectatorial subjectivity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(4), 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. New York, NY: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
Prinsloo, M., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Digital literacies as placed resources in the globalised periphery. Language and Education, 26(4), 271–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rembert-Lang, L. D. (2010). Reinforcing the tower of Babel: The impact of copyright law on fansubbing. Intellectual Property Brief, 2(2), 21–33.Google Scholar
Richard, A., & Rudnyckyj, D. (2009). Economies of affect. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15(1), 57–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. (Eds.). (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, B. K. (2012). Beyond social networking: Performing global Englishes in Facebook by college youth in Nepal. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(4), 483–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (Eds.). (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, W., & O’Regan, J. P. (2018). Fetishism and the language commodity: A materialist critique. Language Sciences, 701, 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture in the digital economy. Social Text, 18(2), 33–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A. (1992). Inalienable possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bruzos, Alberto
2023. Can language be commodified? Toward a Marxist theory of language commodification. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 20:2 ► pp. 150 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.