Sunday, February 17, 2008
Leetspeak, a dialect? Rawful!
Is leetspeak a dialect or a jargon? If you think I'm crazy you can suck it.
A very particular dialect has been emerging over the past 20 years. It has no social, racial, geographic or economic restraints. It is a dialect that has arisen over the internet. Though many people have written off this form of speech as tech or gaming jargon, evidence does exist that “lolspeak” or “leetspeak” is becoming its own dialect with its own phonological, syntactic and grammatical rules. It is far from a homogeneous phenomenon, many people never change the way they talk over the internet. Yet it would appear that most people who use the internet as a social tool are well aware of the many idioms, grammar and acronyms people use to communicate with each other.
The most popular word used from the lol/leet speak vocabulary is “lol” this is pronounced [lawl] or /l –all/. It originates from the acronym “LOL” originally meaning “laughing out loud” used to indicate that the typist is laughing. What is most interesting about this word is how heavily it interacts with the written word, or typed form of communication. It seems to represent two major developmental changes in the history of netspeak; the first of these being the live chat experience, led by the original chatting interface, Prodigy, and continuing with the very popular instant messaging program, Aol Instant Messenger or (AIM). Through this time many acronyms became well known and shared through many different chatting programs. Almost all of these were referred to by their long name, “lol” was pronounced “l. o. l.” an other terms such as “rofl” (Rolling on the floor laughing), “lmao” (laughing my ass off), “brb” (be right back), or “ttyl” (talk to you later) were also being pronounced as acronyms. However a second change occurred in the online community at the advent of Voice Over IP technology, an accessible vocal chatting interface. These emerging programs mostly affected the gaming community at first, and then became popular through voice chatting programs such as Skype. In this environment – people found themselves comfortable using the terms and acronyms known to them through the chatting interface, but suddenly found it awkward to spell out the fact that they were laughing. Due to this change, a more appropriate pronunciation of these acronyms were developed: “lol” became /lawl/ and “rofl” became /rawful/. Perhaps the most interesting ending to this morphological tale, is that the new pronunciations are now being transcribed into typing use. An often used replacement for “lol” is now “lawl”, a phonemic representation of the spoken word.
There are also some prefixes and suffixes that have arisen in this dialect that have morphemic value. For example the popular suffix –zor (sometimes –zors, –xors) has been to change the semantic value of the word it attaches to. Le Blanc claims that the etymology of this suffix is derived from gamers referring to some sort of event or act to be a cheap shot, good luck, or a cheat as being “haxzor” derived from the word “hacker”. Notice that in many of these terms the word can act as both a noun or an adjective; this fact is created by the suffix –xor. For example when asked through a vocal chat interface if the following sentence were grammatical of 100 gamers:
[That gear is haxzors] was thought to be grammatical by 98 of the players,
[She is a hacker] was thought to be grammatical by 100 of the players,
[That gear is hacker] was thought to be grammatical by only 8 of the players.
It is clear that the morpheme –zors seems to be acting as a morpheme changing a noun to and adjective when attached to hack- or hax-.
I intend to collect data from an internet social group contained within and Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. In World of Warcraft, a popular online game with over 7 million subscribers, there are social groups known as guilds. These guilds range between ten and one thousand people. Like the survey mentioned above, I will ask similar questions to these players as well as collect samples of everyday conversation.
The internet moves much faster than real life in many respects. You can interact with dozens of people at the same time and instantly meet people from around the country and world in a matter of seconds. Perhaps the evolution of language is accelerated in online communities as well. Professor Ray Costello said in one of his lectures, “Most of the oddities in English spelling arise from a sense of history in the language, spelling that was phonetic once – in Latin, Greek, German, Old and Middle English. While the history to us, is appealing and interesting, I wonder if the language will ever change to fit the world it lives in today.” Perhaps this is what Professor Costello meant, that one day a large group of individuals would return to a more phonetic pronunciation of every day words. People greet each other every day with a casual “Hi”, not knowing that its orthography does not reflect dip-thong that is pronounced in the word, more and more people however, are online greeting one another with “Hai” a step closer to its phonetic representation [Haj].
In conclusion: powned.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Are you a Poor Reader?
Yes.
If you're my age or older you probably are. It wasn't until the mid-90's that phonics became a standard method to teach reading to youngsters.
If you are like me: you got the "Whole Language Method" where they throw a book and a dictionary at you and tell you to grow some pubes.
(which is why I am HARDCORE)
Anyways - apparently those who learned how to read using the Whole Language Method are often considered "poor readers" who have issues "correctly pronouncing new words" because we have "less experience with the rules of phonology"
Well that's crap - just because our mommies didn't breastfeed us consonant clusters until we were 6 years old, doesn't mean we can't hold our own!
Okay so here is a basic test my Professor showed me: Below are non-existent but phonologically possible words - read them outloud to yourself
- grould
- blave
- bloes
- tays
So if you are a "skilled reader" you should have read those as "mold, save, toes, days". And a common sign of a poor reader is reading them as "would, have, does, says"
So - me? I read "grould" as in "gruel-d", and "bloes" as in "shoes". Either I am a poor reader or a MAD GENIUS. Most likely the former.
Whole-language learners out there- I think we have been powned. If you wanna prove the MAN wrong take this free reading aptitude test: http://www.test4free.com/
it takes a while to finish but I think you'll be just as disappointed with the results as I was:
Comprehension Results:

Phonics Results

Ow, my pride.
If you're my age or older you probably are. It wasn't until the mid-90's that phonics became a standard method to teach reading to youngsters.
If you are like me: you got the "Whole Language Method" where they throw a book and a dictionary at you and tell you to grow some pubes.
(which is why I am HARDCORE)
Anyways - apparently those who learned how to read using the Whole Language Method are often considered "poor readers" who have issues "correctly pronouncing new words" because we have "less experience with the rules of phonology"
Well that's crap - just because our mommies didn't breastfeed us consonant clusters until we were 6 years old, doesn't mean we can't hold our own!
Okay so here is a basic test my Professor showed me: Below are non-existent but phonologically possible words - read them outloud to yourself
- grould
- blave
- bloes
- tays
So if you are a "skilled reader" you should have read those as "mold, save, toes, days". And a common sign of a poor reader is reading them as "would, have, does, says"
So - me? I read "grould" as in "gruel-d", and "bloes" as in "shoes". Either I am a poor reader or a MAD GENIUS. Most likely the former.
Whole-language learners out there- I think we have been powned. If you wanna prove the MAN wrong take this free reading aptitude test: http://www.test4free.com/
it takes a while to finish but I think you'll be just as disappointed with the results as I was:
Comprehension Results:

Phonics Results

Ow, my pride.
The McGurk Effect
It may sound like he is saying "DA"
Now watch it with your eyes closed, it probably sounds like he is saying "BA".
While watching - open and close your eyes, the sound should change between "DA" and "BA".
(unless you are a pussy)
What causes this?
Our mind takes visual cues when listening to people talk - the video is of a man articulating the sound "GA", so our mind compensates for the mismatch by finding some in between sound of "GA" and "BA", which is "DA"
Our mind interferes with our audio-visual reception all the time. Damn Mind!
oh god- did your balls just drop?
not for pussies!
Monday, December 17, 2007
Interview with a Synesthetic Part I
This semester I befriended a synesthetic named Kathy in my Semantics class. I use the term "befriended" loosely - really I bring flash cards to class, draw symbols everywhere and poke her, and she somehow tolerates it.
(Maybe my voice gives her orgasms! Or MAYBE SHE SEES ME IN TECHNICOLOR AND IT MAKES HER GIGGLE!)
So it seems she experiences the following synesthesias: symbol-color, sound-tactile, and sound-color. This post I will focus on symbol-color.
Things I've discovered so far when poking my Freshman Test Subject / Muse:
1. The subject sees separate mono-colored words and symbols in different colors. Depending on what she focuses on, the colors can change. Reading the word " E...L...O...Q...U...E... N... T" slowly, makes all the letters a different color- but reading it together usually will created a single colored word such as "ELOQUENT".
2. The subject perceives same-colored words when the two words are semantically related, also in related sentences and even paragraphs! In a list of words, ones that are related will "pop out in a different color" even "flash to change to a color of a previous related word". When reading an essay, same-subject sentences will pop out in the same color - EVEN PARAGRAPHS!
(Note to self - this is when I started considering Kathy a super-hero rather than a synesthetic - with super-powers I must steal.)
3. Kathy, as well as many other synesthetics can read at an alarmingly fast rate. The average American reading speed is between 200-250 words per minute - while Kathy clocks in at about 980 wpm. She says its because there are entire words she can skip over by just seeing its color - mostly function words such as: and, to, with, a, the, etc.
(Note to self - acquire super-power stealing abilities, contact writers from Heroes NBC,
inquire about Peter Petrelli)
4. The Subject only perceives color in words, letters or symbols that have some semantic meaning for her. She claims when she was learning French - she could always tell how well she was doing by reading a paragraph - only the words she understood would be in color while the unknown would stay its original pigment. Apparently learning new vocabulary is extremely easy for her, however, because other semantically related words appear in the same color - its like color-coding your own lexicon (fucking awesome).
5. The subject cannot stand modern art. She says the more complicated the patterns, the more the figures and symbols "flash" in her mind - sometimes almost as painful for her as an epileptic watching Gundam. So just to make sure Kathy doesn't read this and sue me - lets put up some garlic for the vampire:
Oh Klimt- only thinking of yourself, huh, never about the synesthetics that just had an aneurysm over your spirally, triangly, rectangley masterpiece. SHAME ON YOU!
6. Her symbol-color associations are almost entirely arbitrary. Calm words are not blue, angry words are not red. The word BLUE, for her is seen as orange. My last post pertaining to the Stroop Effect simply does not apply to her. It makes one wonder how her lexicon is stored in the big beautiful synesthetic brain of hers.
(Note to self - NBC Studios has not returned phone calls - synethesia IS genetic - find way to obtain Subject's fertilized eggs).
(Maybe my voice gives her orgasms! Or MAYBE SHE SEES ME IN TECHNICOLOR AND IT MAKES HER GIGGLE!)
So it seems she experiences the following synesthesias: symbol-color, sound-tactile, and sound-color. This post I will focus on symbol-color.
Things I've discovered so far when poking my Freshman Test Subject / Muse:
1. The subject sees separate mono-colored words and symbols in different colors. Depending on what she focuses on, the colors can change. Reading the word " E...L...O...Q...U...E... N... T" slowly, makes all the letters a different color- but reading it together usually will created a single colored word such as "ELOQUENT".
2. The subject perceives same-colored words when the two words are semantically related, also in related sentences and even paragraphs! In a list of words, ones that are related will "pop out in a different color" even "flash to change to a color of a previous related word". When reading an essay, same-subject sentences will pop out in the same color - EVEN PARAGRAPHS!
(Note to self - this is when I started considering Kathy a super-hero rather than a synesthetic - with super-powers I must steal.)
3. Kathy, as well as many other synesthetics can read at an alarmingly fast rate. The average American reading speed is between 200-250 words per minute - while Kathy clocks in at about 980 wpm. She says its because there are entire words she can skip over by just seeing its color - mostly function words such as: and, to, with, a, the, etc.
(Note to self - acquire super-power stealing abilities, contact writers from Heroes NBC,
inquire about Peter Petrelli)
4. The Subject only perceives color in words, letters or symbols that have some semantic meaning for her. She claims when she was learning French - she could always tell how well she was doing by reading a paragraph - only the words she understood would be in color while the unknown would stay its original pigment. Apparently learning new vocabulary is extremely easy for her, however, because other semantically related words appear in the same color - its like color-coding your own lexicon (fucking awesome).
5. The subject cannot stand modern art. She says the more complicated the patterns, the more the figures and symbols "flash" in her mind - sometimes almost as painful for her as an epileptic watching Gundam. So just to make sure Kathy doesn't read this and sue me - lets put up some garlic for the vampire:
Oh Klimt- only thinking of yourself, huh, never about the synesthetics that just had an aneurysm over your spirally, triangly, rectangley masterpiece. SHAME ON YOU!6. Her symbol-color associations are almost entirely arbitrary. Calm words are not blue, angry words are not red. The word BLUE, for her is seen as orange. My last post pertaining to the Stroop Effect simply does not apply to her. It makes one wonder how her lexicon is stored in the big beautiful synesthetic brain of hers.
(Note to self - NBC Studios has not returned phone calls - synethesia IS genetic - find way to obtain Subject's fertilized eggs).
The Stroop Effect
Name the color the word is printed in (but not out loud, lest you look like an rtard):
RED BLUE PURPLE INDIGO, WTF IS INDIGO
GREEN YELLOW ORANGE
aw, that was so easy, congratulate yourself with a pat on the back and a root beer float.
How about these ones:
ELEPHANT PUPPY HAMSTER
DONKEY KITTEN SEA OTTER
And what color are these words printed in?
BLUE YELLOW ORANGE
GREEN PURPLE RED
If you are like most people - and are not synesthetic - the colors of the third grouping of words were probably a little harder to discern than the second and first. This (according to many linguists) is because we access our own lexicon in "lexical neighborhoods" and because these words are grouped together it is hard to access two words in the same neighborhood at one time.
Stroop didn't have many "colored" friends, but his Jamaican Roommate, named Whitey mc White White was often offended.
RED BLUE PURPLE INDIGO, WTF IS INDIGO
GREEN YELLOW ORANGE
aw, that was so easy, congratulate yourself with a pat on the back and a root beer float.
How about these ones:
ELEPHANT PUPPY HAMSTER
DONKEY KITTEN SEA OTTER
And what color are these words printed in?
GREEN PURPLE RED
If you are like most people - and are not synesthetic - the colors of the third grouping of words were probably a little harder to discern than the second and first. This (according to many linguists) is because we access our own lexicon in "lexical neighborhoods" and because these words are grouped together it is hard to access two words in the same neighborhood at one time.
Stroop didn't have many "colored" friends, but his Jamaican Roommate, named Whitey mc White White was often offended.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
