Carnie's discussion of language as acquired (as opposed to learned) and subconscious knowledge immediately made me think of a modern phenomenon which seems to follow the same conceptions of syntax he lays down: the propagation of internet memes. I became interested in the case of Doge (typically an image of a Shiba Inu dog accompanied by ungrammatical text in Comic Sans expressing incoherent amazement) in particular. Certainly all people who regularly encounter memes on the Internet can identify a given text as an example of Doge or not with ease, but as with all memes, they would not have learned the distinction through studying explicit rules. Rather, they would have acquired an understanding of Doge via exposure. But what makes Doge so easily understandable and identifiable despite its lack of adherence to conventions of English grammar?
Thinking about Doge further, I realized it actually has a syntax entirely of its own. Though Doge is far more simple than English (it is neither recursive nor hierarchical), it still has a clear structure: two or three phrases (let us call them DP's for Doge Phrase) followed by either "wow" or "amaze" (usually the former). A DP typically consists of an adjective such as "such", "very", "much", "so", or "many" and either an adjective, verb, or noun (let us call this word D), depending on which would be grammatically incorrect in ordinary English. For example, while "many" would be normally followed by a quantifiable plural noun such as "languages," in Doge, it would be followed by an adjective, verb, or non-quantifiable noun such as "recursion."
Even when we replace D's with nonsense words, one can easily tell grammatically correct Doge (i.e., "such gartic. very blorgs. wow.") from ungrammatical Doge (i.e., "many flofies. very wullous. wow."). This corroborates Carnie's point on the nature of parts of speech – namely, that they are partially determined by their distributions (here, we identify "flofies" as a plural noun by its "s" suffix and placement after "many" and "wullous" as an adjective by its "ous" suffix and placement after "very"). More importantly for our consideration of Doge, the example reinforces the idea that the meme has a legitimate syntax. While some might view the meme as complete nonsense, it seems to be the case that there's method to the madness – or, as one might say, "such grammar. very reason. amaze."
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about the syntax of memes and other identifiable forms of ungrammatical English!
Wow - this connection is amazing. I find it interesting that there are this idea of Universal Grammar, but we still understand and relate to these memes that are completely improper by these rules. If we follow these rules, how are we able to relate to something that has a syntax of its own, like you said. Is it that Universal Grammar means our brain can adjust to whatever syntax is displayed to us? This might help me understand how we acquire the knowledge of language instead of learn it all directly.
ReplyDeleteI was much reminded of this by Carnie's discussion of mass vs. count nouns on p.49. I believe one of the best things about having a complex system of rules governing language is the beautiful (and terrible) results that arise from flouting those rules--essentially, wordplay, as seen in Lewis Carroll and Norton Juster and countless others' works. With Doge and nouns, the humor arises out of a subversion of expectations-- for example, where count nouns like "apple" usually take "many," a DP would use "much;" "much apple." wow. It also works the other way round, with mass nouns and "many:" "many air. many sincerity. wow." So, "much flofies" works as a DP because "flofies" is countable (-s plural ending), but "many flofies" does not work in Doge syntax. Such a system, as mentioned above, /deliberately/ flies in the face of conventional English syntax. However, I would posit that because it's the opposite, it's easier to understand; we have something to compare it to, and so we can flip our "many's" and "much's" to have a system of shared wordplay easy for all to grasp. The Doge syntax is completely its own, and yet familiar, for much reason. very insight. wow.
ReplyDeleteI loved reading this post, and honestly I think about a lot of these questions as well. I have friends who are obsessed with "memeing", and the linguistic syntax of some memes has permeated the way that they talk in regular conversation. I find this happening to me too -- not just with meme syntax, but with other ironic phrases and grammar structures -- I find myself in a habit of "talking in memes" or texting abbreviations, and what started out as fun and ironic has made its way into my subconscious, to the point where I will say "such [N], very wow", or "lol/lmao" [pronounced "lawl" and "luhmao"] unironically in conversation, without even realizing.
ReplyDelete