updated projects...
Ok, for those of you interested, here´s what is keeping me busy currently:
without repeating much, i´m still doing the spanish L2 (as a second language) project looking at how learners use word class knowledge, syntax, etc. to figure out the correct word in a pair.
I´m analyzing a few jokes by Eddie Izzard, using the semantic script theory of humor to analyze the structure of the jokes as well as the scripts (scripts are the semantic and encyclopedic information that a native speaker has of a word, group of words). From this I am using Relevance Theory to explore what I am tentatively calling the implied social message that is contained in some jokes (could we put these types of jokes into the genre of "satire"? I´m not sure...), I suppose I could call it the moral of the joke, since most morals are implicit anyway: except those Asop ones where they spell it out, but those of for kids... Within this project I´m comparing these two theories as well to show similarities and differences because i think in order for one theory to complement another i have to show that they are not looking at two completely different things: one is focused on the explicit message and the other on explicit and implicit messages, so I think the overlap is enough. Plus the way in which they go about it and describe knowledge about words is just about the same, although using their own terminology (big problem in linguistics is that everyone wants to use their own terms...and at least Sperber and Wilson don´t seem to look outside the popular readings of the other fields...Attardo (from the humor theories) has mentioned Relevance Theory, while relevance theory hasn´t mentioned semantic humor theory...maybe because they´re British and prefer drinking tea and pretending that they still are a superpower, whereas us Americans prefer drinking coffee and pretending that anyone cares that we are a military superpower.
Ok, another project is looking at the time it takes to read humorous texts vs. non-humorous texts of the same length. i thought it would take longer to read humorous texts (think of jokes as well as articles from the Onion) because they would have to find the two scripts (a la semantic script theory of humor). I used a program that timed their reading in millisecond (DMDX: not the easiest program to use!) So far the results show that my hypothesis is wrong (well, not supported by the data). I also tested them a few days later to see which texts they remembered better, thinking they´d remember the texts that took longer. Have yet to get that data.
well, off to talk about getting a job here at the UDLAP next semester teaching 100 level English to students who don´t want to be there.
without repeating much, i´m still doing the spanish L2 (as a second language) project looking at how learners use word class knowledge, syntax, etc. to figure out the correct word in a pair.
I´m analyzing a few jokes by Eddie Izzard, using the semantic script theory of humor to analyze the structure of the jokes as well as the scripts (scripts are the semantic and encyclopedic information that a native speaker has of a word, group of words). From this I am using Relevance Theory to explore what I am tentatively calling the implied social message that is contained in some jokes (could we put these types of jokes into the genre of "satire"? I´m not sure...), I suppose I could call it the moral of the joke, since most morals are implicit anyway: except those Asop ones where they spell it out, but those of for kids... Within this project I´m comparing these two theories as well to show similarities and differences because i think in order for one theory to complement another i have to show that they are not looking at two completely different things: one is focused on the explicit message and the other on explicit and implicit messages, so I think the overlap is enough. Plus the way in which they go about it and describe knowledge about words is just about the same, although using their own terminology (big problem in linguistics is that everyone wants to use their own terms...and at least Sperber and Wilson don´t seem to look outside the popular readings of the other fields...Attardo (from the humor theories) has mentioned Relevance Theory, while relevance theory hasn´t mentioned semantic humor theory...maybe because they´re British and prefer drinking tea and pretending that they still are a superpower, whereas us Americans prefer drinking coffee and pretending that anyone cares that we are a military superpower.
Ok, another project is looking at the time it takes to read humorous texts vs. non-humorous texts of the same length. i thought it would take longer to read humorous texts (think of jokes as well as articles from the Onion) because they would have to find the two scripts (a la semantic script theory of humor). I used a program that timed their reading in millisecond (DMDX: not the easiest program to use!) So far the results show that my hypothesis is wrong (well, not supported by the data). I also tested them a few days later to see which texts they remembered better, thinking they´d remember the texts that took longer. Have yet to get that data.
well, off to talk about getting a job here at the UDLAP next semester teaching 100 level English to students who don´t want to be there.