Tag Archives: linguistics

What I’m reading 11 Mar 2018 – 21 Apr 2018

What I’m reading 29 Oct 2017 – 6 Feb 2018

What I’m reading 3 Aug 2017 through 10 Aug 2017

sounds familiar

Hodge asks us to look to semiosis to understand and act in the politically over-charged moment. 

McCarthyism was constituted in texts and in explosive discursive, semiosic processes that carried the effects very far, very quickly…. Semiosic contexts inflect meanings and are themselves meanings. McCarthy’s strategy included waving a list in the Senate which he claimed contained 205 names of proven commu- nists in public office, which he would not reveal. Waving the list was a multimodal signifier supporting his spoken words. This semiosic situation contains multiple splits. McCarthy’s speech is a surface text split from its real meaning, supposedly known to the speaker but not the audience. The speaker demands absolute trust from his hearers at the same time as he excludes them. We do not need a theory of schizophrenia to see this as a way to provoke paranoia.

Hodge, Social Semiotics for a Complex World. 91.

What I’m reading 24 May 2017 through 28 May 2017

What I’m reading 19 Dec 2016 through 2 Jan 2017

What I’m reading 28 Jul 2016 through 17 Aug 2016

What I’m reading 28 Aug 2015 through 14 Sep 2015

What I’m reading 15 May 2015 through 18 May 2015

on pinboard for March 22nd, 2014 through March 26th, 2014

  • A Pragmatics of Links | Tosca | Journal of Digital Information – "This paper applies the linguistic theory of relevance to the study of the way links work, insisting on the lyrical quality of the link-interpreting activity. It is argued that such a pragmatic approach can help us understand hypertext readers` behavior, and thus be useful for authors and tool-builders alike." Read alongside Burbles. Rhetorics of the web. – (dh hypertext hypertextessay hypernarrative )
  • Are ‘grammar Nazis’ ruining the English language? – Telegraph – A light introduction to the focus of linguistics and the Language Log. Followed by 100s of inane comments. "Despite what many people think, the rules of a language – any language – are only defined by how people use that language. When you think about it, that has to be the case: the rules of English are different now from how they were in Milton’s time, let alone Chaucer’s, and no one has ever sat down and deliberately changed them; they’ve changed because the language has evolved, through changing use. Pullum’s job is determining what those rules are." – (linguistics grammar prescriptivism )