Evaluating Values Online: Android vs iPhone

The importance of values in our lives is immeasurable, they encompass our entire reasoning system and allow us to compare different objects or actions that we come across and thus allow us to make rational and logical deductions and decisions about our course of action. In his 2007 work, Ray Jackendoff introduced a comprehensive notion of eight independent value types that cover almost every aspect of social and cognitive reasoning. Jackendoff (2007) elaborates on the complexity of these values in that they have a valence (good or bad), and a magnitude (better or worse). The posited values are: Affective (A-value) if something feels good/bad, Utility (U-value) if it is good/bad for X, Resource (R- value) if it is good/bad to have, Quality (Q-value) if it is good/bad relative to others of the same type, Prowess (P-value) if it is good/bad at doing such-and- such, Normative (N-value) if it is good/bad of X to do such-and-such, Personal Normative (PN-value) if someone is good/bad for conforming to social norms, and Esteem (E-value) if someone is prestigious/respected. The current research project highlights the joint- ness of evaluating items within a Community of Practice. The ways of acting, the ways of talking, belief and value systems all emerge through the course of these joint activities (Eckert & McConnell- Ginet 1992). This reinforces a notion of joint cognitive reasoning activity which uses value systems, common ground, and joint actions (Clark 1996) to help one another draw conclusions and evaluations about objects or actions. The data used for the analysis features interaction in two online fora focused on discussions about technology – namely Android and iPhone devices. Serendipitously, both fora feature the same original poster posting an identical initial proposal featuring a long personal anecdote followed by a pros and cons list for each type of device allowing analysis on members of each Community of Practice. The analysis considers how the Original Poster’s (OP’s) proposal to form a discussion is taken up with others’ responses, in turn, displaying not only that they have identified OP’s purpose but that they are willing and able to do their part in this joint activity. The use of values as a resource in rhetorical argumentation will also be considered. The data show that the OP presents their values in a largely neutral manner thus enabling other users flexibility in appropriating and wielding their own values. The analysis indicates an interactional goal from the OP who repeatedly replies to the responses they are given thus displaying their orientation to the overtly joint activity. Ultimately, this research project investigates links between a notion of a fluid set of values that appear to be embedded in our understanding of reasoning and how they manifest themselves linguistically. Clark, H. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Eckert, P., and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In: Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., and Moonwomon, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkley, California, 4th-5th April 1992. pp 89-99 Jackendoff, R. (2007) Language, consciousness, culture: essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MIT Press.