Moins Langue, Plus Parole

I.
In many modern, mainstream linguistic models, much (what numerous m's in this sentence!) hinges on the duality of langue and parole (from Saussure) - which in more modern circles are called competence and performance (from Chomsky). Now the older (former) and newer (latter) sets of terms have some important distinctions between them as well - but what concerns me is the idea of accepting any linguistic dualism. So we will ignore the older set and concentrate on Chomsky's terms.

Simply put, competence is what an individual speaker functionally (f-) knows about language (mostly unconsciously) and performance is what a speaker does with it. For instance, a child, talking about his father, might say, "I gave the shovel to he" and it is a fine sentence because the child hasn't developed a competence that includes "him" and the appropriate usage rules. Most adults uttering the same sentence would catch themselves and correct, because adult (for most) competence does include "him" and restricts the use of "he" in the example above. So competence is what we know, performance is what we do. The two don't always have to match - and many, many instances (in a single day) can be found where they don't.

This is important for models of language because it is much easier to specify rules (that can allow a speaker to generate a sentence) when you can throw out all the counter-examples as mistakes.

And I think, for the most part, that this is quite useful. We certainly would want to restrict the described grammar of a language (the lists of rules that explain how a speaker makes a sentence) from generating a lot of gibberish and nonsense.

Except that we should. Because language doesn't exist outside of individual speakers, we (meaning linguists and other interested parties) should be studying how a person (a real, live, individual) comes up with all the verbal diarrhea that they do. Because no one obeys the grammar rules we have. No one. Not even for a day, or even an hour.

We've passed the point of getting to shuffle off all the loops and quirks and mis-speaks and stammers as being mere "performance" - if we can't explain performance, we can't explain language. Language exists because speakers make it. Let's study that.


II.
As an example, 1a and 1b below represent "good" (meaning grammatical) and "bad" (meaning ungrammatical) sentences.

1a. I took the cookie off his plate when he wasn't looking.
1b. I took the cookie off his plate who he wasn't looking.

I think most speakers would agree about the goodness and badness of those two sentences. Although I made it up, I have very strong intuitions that the second sentence is representative of an actual mistake that an adult, native speaker might make, when actually going about the daily business of speaking (ignoring second language learner and children).

(Which brings up a point that must be made before going on. This sort of work, studying mistakes, really ought to be done with real people and real people's mistakes. The armchair must be vacated.)

Now traditionally, a syntactician would develop a grammar that explains the first sentence and ignore the second. A linguist who is interested in miscues and errors might want to explain where the second one went wrong, how if differs, what rule (I speak of rules not in a top-down sense, but in a specifically linguistic one, the way programmers speak of rules: X->Y) was modified and how. A neurolinguist might even be interested in what went wrong in the brain that led to the production of the bad sentence - which is the main thrust of my argument.

Whatever mental/neural processes (and structures) were responsible first sentence were also responsible for the second sentence. Syntax must go neural, by which I mean we can no longer study language away from the individual brain. The misapplication of a f-mental syntax ought to be as interesting and significant as the proper application.

Demise

what lush, what green,
such absolute gray between
the red fence and the branch

and not a hint of shine
on any inch of electric line
down down the telephone pole

such hope dwindles in that heart,
seeing nothing but a ruined world,
outwards-in bent, and cries for a safer universe
the dwindled soul

Indiana Jones and the Linguistics of Doom

With all the fanfare and, dare I say it: buzz, surrounding the new Indiana Jones movie, I was confounded by a few facts after I started talking with friends about the series.

My friends and I (and I suspect most fans) refer to the IJ movies thusly:

Raiders of the Lost Ark: "Raiders"
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Temple"
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "Crusade"

Up until recently, we called the new film (Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) Indy 4. We will likely refer to as "Kingdom" from now on.

This presents an interesting question - how do people choose short reference names for books and films (and art?)?

My intuition would generate the sentences in 1 (with weird/bad sentences being marked by ?/*, as in the usual method in my field) for talking about Raiders of the Lost Ark.

1.
I rewatched "Raiders" last night for the tenth time.
?I rewatched "Ark" last night for the tenth time.
*I rewatched "Lost" last night for the tenth time.


It is apparent to me that "Raiders" works much better than "Ark", and "Lost" doesn't work at all. I try the same technique in 2, 3, and 4 for the respective second, third, and fourth film. As a side note, it would probably be fine to refer to any of the films as "Indiana Jones" but such a use invariably leads to the question: "Which one?"

2.
I rewatched "Temple" last night for the tenth time.
?I rewatched "Doom" last night for the tenth time.
**I rewatched "of" last night for the tenth time.

3.
I rewatched "Crusade" last night for the tenth time.
*?I rewatched "Last" last night for the tenth time.
**I rewatched "and the last" last night for the tenth time.

4.
My family is going to see "Kingdom" tomorrow, do you want to come?
*??My family is going to see "Crystal" tomorrow, do you want to come?
?My family is going to see "Skulls" tomorrow, do you want to come?
My family is going to see "Crystal Skulls" tomorrow, do you want to come?


Of course these are only my intuitions, others may be much more accepting of "Doom" or "Skulls" than I am. What intrigues me is that it seems, at first glance, that all the nicknames must be noun phrases (NPs). Stranded articles and adjectives (even nouns acting as adjectives such as "Crystal") don't work.

This is born out by how people reference the second and third movies in the original Star Wars trilogy:

The Empire Strikes Back: "Empire"
The Return of the Jedi: "Return/Jedi"

In the second case, I personally prefer "Jedi" to "Return" but given a declared context, I am fine with it. 5 and 6 provide some examples but also raise interesting points themselves.

5.
My favorite Star Wars movie is "Empire."
*My favorite Star Wars movie is "Strikes."
*My favorite Star Wars movie is "Back."
?My favorite Star Wars movie is "Strikes Back"

6.
I prefer "Jedi."
*?I prefer "the Jedi."
I prefer "Return."
*?I prefer "the Return."
**I prefer "the Return of the."
**I prefer "of the Jedi."


The last entry in 5, "Strikes Back", is weird for me, but not grossly unacceptable. What is very interesting is oddity of including the article in the NP. This suggests a further restriction on film nicknames.

I could also hypothesize a general rule of economy (shorter is better) and what could be called an obligatory semantic context (frame?): using the nicknames for the films without having established the context lends itself to confusion, as per the conversation in 7.

7.
What are you doing tonight?
Gonna watch "crusade."
Is that a new movie? I don't think I've heard of it.
No, Indiana Jones.
Oh, that "crusade."


This idea of contextual framing is something I've very interested in. John Lawler and Charles J. Fillmore have both done tremendous work in the field. It seems clear to me that there exists a tremendous number of frames that are required in order to understand most of daily conversation. Being able to discuss a particular entertainment form (or set of entries in the form) requires particular frames.

The use nicknames for films (and books and art and who knows what else) seems to follow some basic rules; nouns are preferred, articles and prepositions are dispreferred, and adjectives (if used) must be attached to a noun. Verbs are a little harder to pin down. As a last exercise, consider the examples in 8 and see what you would choose as a one or two word nickname for the piece/film/song. My choices are provided in 9.

8.
Nude Descending A Staircase.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
I Know What You Did Last Summer
All Things Must Pass
Carry That Weight
Do You Want to Know A Secret?

9.
Staircase
Roger Rabbit
Last Summer
All Things
Weight
Secret

As a final point, none of these piece/films/songs have nicknames for me. I don't talk about any of them enough to warrant them. Nor do I think a normal conversation between average people would include the use of nicknames for these. The use of any of the entries in 9 would require a specific frame, respectively: best Duchamp piece, famous movies that mix real life and animation, silly camp horror movies from the 1990's, or Beatles songs. Once one of these frames is established, then (given an understanding between the speakers as to the reference of the nickname) the nicknames in 9 can be used.

Maybe.

Revolution 25

Please take a moment to celebrate/enjoy/mourn/regret/thank God for/curse the fates for/ponder the glory of me.

Bits

switch the laundry, check my limitations,
follow the plot using pre-intuition.
listen for steps, dream up my daughters first name,
imagine the future moon peopled and tamed.
sit in shops and sip at what I'm given,
forget that I've eaten and I eat again.
I watch the show, and I watch the show.

what language does not do

We measured the distance
from the front
to the back of the house, looking for a means
to compare ourselves with not ourselves.
We found nothing out.

Jason Ross's voice was a strangled scream
the man alive
an insane lion shot through the gut
a slave freed after forty years.
Just as she and I left, our souls suddenly rang.

A thousand dollars on an impossible trifecta, and then the dead horse.
Electric lights full of mercury, two in a pack, two packs please.
I do not know the future, or the past, or what language does not do.

It makes
men of mammals,
Christs of Buddhas,
and defines itself by silence.

Jason Ross scars his throat like that -
over the sound of the train
punching out the silence, in words bared,
Buddha gone, Christ here. God sings for us
proving himself in note after note
and note after note
and so
on on on...
Holy Holy Holy...

The place was packed
when we left
I was absolutely sober.

We went home
to find the length of floor
between the back door and the front
but the dear dog
kept stomping on the tape
and we at last surrendered to her and sat down.

We found nothing out but that God sings for us.

Cloudwatching Socio-historical Processes

I, back down, laying on the stone to
Watch what grey chilly skies would
Reflect from shiny black streets of
Rainy froth.

The overcast looked like thick stew or
Molding clay ready for a finger to
Plow a deep furrow and prepare for the
Planting season.

So I traced my index finger through the
Fields in perfectly straight lines of
Half inch wide canals, each ready for
Seed and Agriculture in this brand new
Sort of Farm.

Perhaps the farm will multiply and
Divide, pass from one generation of
Sky-dwellers to the next, each new set of
Sons learning the ancestral trade of
Atmospharming.

Until the class system develops, and some
Farmers work and some become the
Managers: a tenant-cloud contract, with
Feudal lords of the winds demanding
Frequent Taxes.

And all shall be shadowed by the
Greed of the kings, until the war and the
Upstarts declare themselves to be
Independent and form new countries of
Yeoman Farmers.

It will progress until ruin comes and
Armageddon sweeps their lands from every
Farm to every castle, and then the
World they knew disappears into a the void of a
Sunny Day.

- Sunday, April Fifteenth, 2007

Into The West

I just read Fareed Zakaria's incredible piece, here, via The Drudge Report, on "The Rise of The Rest" or how America Exceptionalism is on its way out. A few points to make:

1. What makes America great is not its power. Nor its money. Nor it's sciences, engineers, companies, institutions, culture, or people. What makes America great is Freedom.

So despite the loss of our multiple "top" rankings in so many areas; what we must always consider is this: does globalization lead to increased Freedom or not? If yes, then we should embrace it - even as it means that we're not "Number 1."

2. The glory of our nation has not declined, but (has been/is being) outdone. It's an important distinction; because adults, emotional/spiritual adults, of whom there are too few, do not worry about the Jones. Adults look to their own house, compare themselves with themselves; the increase of other stars does not mean we shine any less. And if we are serious about caring for the world, and by the world I mean the people in it, then that greater light of all these stars is a blessing and not a curse.

3. "I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel." In Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring, Galadriel passed her test to choose between supreme power and maintaining herself.

We face a similar choice: are we to remain the global supreme power, holding on, clutching, shrieking, biting and gnawing at our top spot, bitter and xenophobic, looking over our shoulders, attacking what we do not understand, always afraid, psychotically competitive, shrinking into ourselves, giving nothing and taking nothing?

Or shall we pursue the cause of Freedom, not just in ourselves but for all, each and every, across the wide wide world?

"But all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well." - Lewis

"And news will come to you of wars and talk of wars: do not be troubled, for these things have to be; but it is still not the end." - Matthew 24:6

It is not the end.

Cinco de Gato

Happy Cinco de Gato: The Fifth of Cat!

In addition to that other Mexican holiday, it is also my two cats' birthday. To celebrate, some common phrases about cats, with their Spanish translation, as provided by WordReference.com:


When the cat's away, the mice will play, cuando el gato no está, los ratones bailan

Curiosity killed the cat, la curiosidad mató al gato

He thinks he's the cat's whiskers, se cree el ombligo del mundo

You look like something the cat's dragged in, tienes un aspecto horrible

You haven't got a cat in hell's chance, no tienes la más mínima posibilidad

It's raining cats and dogs, está lloviendo a cántaros

She set the cat among the pigeons, causó un gran revuelo

There's no room to swing a cat in here, aquí no cabe un alfiler

To let the cat out of the bag, levantar la liebre



and last, some pictures of the darlings: