Posts Tagged ‘semantics’

h1

linguistic entropy and me could have a bad romance

October 6, 2010

I’m working on a paper right now for my “senior seminar” independent study in literature that involves me making the head of the literature department read Chomsky. So I’ve assigned myself, in this, the task of writing a squib next week about UG as an analogy for narratology. Meanwhile, my housemate is doing some work in phonology class that leads towards (but not exactly to) OT.

So, all that plus some pumpkin ale and listening to Bad Romance over and over has led to an exciting new pet theory, which I shall now inflict on y’all: The Gaga artistic project is a realization of the asymptotic approach of poetic language towards the removal of all constraints within optimality theory.

My argument is mainly in the use of lyrics like the “ra ra ah ah ah” line (as it is typically transcribed by non-linguists), which is essentially a repetition of minimally marked phonemes (schwas and glottal stops) within a minimally marked prosodic template (heavy single syllables, and one trochee; in short, bimoraic feet). This line is not semantically void, and the phonological patterns which it takes to the extreme do color the rest of the pronunciation of the lyrics in the song. When I can talk my pet phonologists into doing so, through threats or bribes, I will show some more detailed data which demonstrate this. The point is, this kind of poetic/linguistic representation of entropy is essentially the eventual conclusion (which, since it is an asymptotic approach, no language will ever reach) of markedness constraints.

Meanwhile, I’d argue that a similar thing happens in the syntax/semantics realm with Kenji Siratori’s book Nonexistence, a book which many from my Cyberpunk class with Professor Godzich reported to be essentially gibberish and (to a bunch of literature majors) thus a little traumatizing. Originally I sort of agreed, but later found this essay on the matter, which I quite enjoyed. To extend further the idea of reading like a nonhuman entity, I would argue that this smorgasbord of synesthesic symbols comes a breakdown of the links between writing and sound, and furthermore between language and meaning. By introducing to a linguistic creature (say, a hundred lit majors) a pattern of things that resemble linguistic behavior but in fact are not language, you cause an upset. Why did no less than three students cry in Professor Godzich’s office that week, and seriously consider switching out of their literature majors altogether? Because the very foundational assumption of their field– the assumption that linguistic material signifies semantic content– was being directly challenged.

It’s that assumption that holds OT together against entropy, too: to combat the markedness constraints that should push us all into “rah rah ah ah” territory, there are faithfulness constraints which bind sound-signifiers to semantic units which they represent. You cannot, within the faithfulness constraints, stray too far from the original signifier without confusing the heck out of your listener. When, however, you strip the semantic connections, as both Gaga and Siratori do, you can get either meaningless sequences of wordlike things (Nonexistence) or you can get meaningful sequences of unwordlike things (Bad Romance).

This isn’t actually going anywhere, if you’re curious.

Um, also I think UG is neat. The end!

h1

Erotica gets translated into smut. :(

February 12, 2010

FIRST, LET ME NOTE: WEDNESDAYS NOTES WERE AMAZING AND PROLIFIC AND THEN MY LAPTOP ATE THEM DURING THE SPRINT FROM LECTURE TO DISCUSSION SECTION. I WAS REALLY REALLY MAD, I PRACTICALLY TRANSCRIBED A LOT OF COOL ANECDOTES. DAMN IT.

So, okay, Friday’s notes! These were… slightly full of porn. This is Professor Godzich’s fault, not mine, I swear. Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

The night of the missing flowcharts

February 1, 2010

“Crash course” and “semiotics” are not exactly two things you want to hear in the same sentence first thing on a Monday morning. I did scribble down the charts described in these notes, and when I have time and access to a scanner I will add those images to this post.  These notes begin Week 5. Yes, I am a little behind.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Apples to Apples (to Overenthusiastic Semanticists)

March 6, 2009

Somewhere along the line, I got it into my head that it would be really nifty to try and construct a fluid, dynamic model of subjective semantics around a bunch of games of Apples to Apples. (Apropos of nothing: why are there Jewish and Bible versions of this? That could be a fun socioling paper to write.) So, this evening when my housemates started up a game, I sat out and tried to record as much of it as I could. My data was full of holes because they didn’t feel like slowing down to tell me who submitted which card, but other than that, I did collect a decent amount of data for the first try.

I’ve yet to try and find any patterns or come up with any theories about this, and I think it would be helpful to play multiple games so I could get multiple entries for each noun card, and this would’ve been way easier to do if there was some electronic version so that the cards themselves were recorded automatically and I could focus more on transcribing the in-game banter (very relevant, had a noticable effect on the outcome!) for further analysis. I’d love to do a real big semantic and sociolinguistic project on Apples to Apples some time, because the game just lends itself so well to that sort of thing.

As to how I would go about analyzing these data, I’d have to say that my first approach would be to try and find situations (once we have about a million times as many data, anyways) where certain cards come up again and again, and check for any pattern. This might be something like finding the “trump cards,” which always seem to win the round no matter what adjective they’re being connected to (“Pond Scum” is just such a trump card in my house), or cards which will always win when the round is being judged by a certain person (according to Harry, that’s the main reason he picked “vampires” for “glorious”). It would also be interesting to see what category of noun tends to get matched with what category of adjective, and so forth. There’s a lot of work to be done on this, is my point, and I sincerely hope that I get a chance in my academic career to devote that much time and effort to the project.

Read the rest of this entry ?