The trouble with virtual worlds: they create realities
Hmm.... I'm considering applying for the Honors Thesis program. It's a year long (2 semester) program for seniors. It's basically just another class in one's schedule, except you meet with your faculty advisor (of whom you choose), read a lot, and write a lot. Requirements: 3.7 major gpa, 3.5 career gpa and all pre-requisites finished. Surprisingly, I'm elligible. (I just have to *stay* elligible at this point). However, this would mean foregoing Japan. I won't know about my Japan app for a while, but the more I bury myself in the work of two highly esteemed professors, the more I'd like to attempt an honors thesis with either of them. (And, i'd be done with my major, giving me the time to devote to such a feat). If I don't get into the Japanese Program (40-50% chance) I will definitely apply for the Honors. Other than that, I'm trying to adjust to 6 hour class days, and the 3 hours of reading that follows class. Thank god I have monday and...
Very true. How's school going?
ReplyDeleteWhat I find hilarious is how the British are technically speaking the same language as us, and yet it's totally different. Despite using the same syntax and vocabulary, Americans and British somehow manage to create two different linguistic domains which simultaneously exist in the same place, yet constitute different cognitive spaces. Kinda' like going to a Chinese restaurant with white people.
ReplyDeleteWait, who said they use the same vocabulary? Syntax??
ReplyDeleteMeh, close enough. Okay, I'll concede that British and American English have different (but overlapping) vocabularies, but I claim they have the same syntax because a grammatically correct sentence in one language is correct in the other.
ReplyDeleteMy point, however, is about the strangeness that occurs because of the simulaneous sameness-yet-difference between different dialects of the same language. In the Penny Arcade example, I understand the syntax of the utterances (i.e., I can classify the sentences and generate analogs in American English), and I know what all of the words mean in American English. This combination allows the sentences to imply a space of possible meanings such that I get the general sense of the utterance, even though I don't know exactly what it would mean to a Brit. It's this sameness-yet-difference that I find interesting.
Take another example -- the word "bugger". It's just a harmless piece of slang to us Americans, but to the British, it's vulgar and offensive. E.g., when we hear "bugger off", it's just a silly way of saying "get lost", but in Britain it's like saying "fuck off". The interesting thing here is not only the different denotations of "bugger", but also the different illocutionary forces. This example of polysemy is of a different sort than that of words like "play" or "tap".