Holy Shit: The cooperative principle

In pragmatics, which is the studies of the meaning of language that falls outside of semantic theory (word and sentence definition, word order etc), there is a system of maxims defined by American philosopher Paul Grice, which govern the rules by which we can understand each other. These are under the umbrella of the cooperative principle for the reason that people generally want to understand what another is saying, so naturally we adhere to some basic principles that allow us to do so.

1. Maxim of quantity - give the correct amount of information; not too little, not too much.
i.e. What are you reading?
no - A book. (although many people do this for comedic effect, or to be difficult)
no - A book, A Tale of Two Cities, which I checked out from the library on August 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm, from the literature section of the Pilsen library in Chicago... etc (this is of course if they do not ask for more information)
yes - A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens.

2. Maxim of quality - give correct information; don't blatantly lie.
i.e. What is in that bowl on the table? (Spaghetti)
no - Corn (of course, this is also subject to jest/sarcasm)
yes - Spaghetti.

3. Maxim of relevance - giving a reply which fits or fulfills the question.
i.e. Where did you get that sweater?
no - There's a new issue of Superman coming out tomorrow.
yes - From the clearance rack at the Gap.

4. Maxim of manner - speak with clarity and order, which may otherwise confuse the listener.
i.e. no - I fell asleep and we talked about language after we ate dinner.
yes - After we ate dinner, we talked about language and then I fell asleep.


So these rules from first glance are extremely simple, common sense that we all possess and use without thought. However, the interesting part is breaking these rules.
We are so set in these principles and so trusting that people follow them, that when the maxims are broken we as language users assume information from or importance in these words.
The book that I'm reading gives an apt example:
"For example, if someone said: 'What's for supper?' and the reply was the superficially irrelevant one: 'Billy fell downstairs', the hearer is likely to assume that the information about Billy was somehow important, and will fill in the gaps with assumptions such as 'Since Billy was supposed to cook the supper, and he's fallen downstairs, I assume that there isn't any supper ready'."

So this is fascinating to me, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the explanation of how we can understand what we do from what is said, when it is not completely explicit (conversational spoken language is inherently inexplicit) is quite amazing. Secondly, I'd like to further explore the other intentional forms of rules breaking, such as sarcasm and humor, in which people break language rules to reach some end.
Poetry and metaphor even have their ways of confusing the systems of linguistics, especially in concern to the 'impossible sentence' in semantic theory.

Wow, who ever thought I was this much of a nerd.

Holy Shit

Porpita porpita (Chondrophore)

This is a colony of living organisms, measuring 1-in in diameter, all working on their own specific task to help the whole. The gas-filled center keeps the colony afloat. Learn more at Visual Complexity by clicking above, or at wiki

(image copyrighted to NOAA - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Thanks!)

Back in the Habit: A's Reads

I'm trying to get back in the habit of blogging more often. I decided to add a new section to the blog called A's Reads. Recently a few people have asked me to tell them about the poetry and lit that I'm reading, because they themselves don't know of contemporary poets etc. So this is an attempt to expose those who are interested to contemporary poetry, text art and literature in general by sharing what I myself am reading.

please refer to these current inspirations:

Jenny Holzer: Truisms

I recently remembered that I saw this piece in the Rhona Hoffman gallery last summer.
Jenny Holzer is one of my favorite artists, and the reasons why are clearly demonstrated in
this piece. The piece consists of about 8 framed pieces of paper, with this text printed on
them in alphabetical order. It may have been a different version than what's listed here, but
the same idea is conveyed. These are invented truisms. Representing - Simplicity. Clarity.
Profundity. So clear in fact that although the statement itself is new, it presents nothing
new. There are new truism. Language at its best.

Tyler Sherman: Happenstance

Tyler shared this poem with me recently. I'm not sure if this the exact edit that I saw, but
this is a fine fine example of a long poem. It continues the precision of a short poem, but
allows the tightness of the poem to be complimented by the looseness of the subject. This
poem so importantly let's things in that may seen rationally tangential, but are emotionally
relevant. It is witty, intelligent and notably vulnerable. Something that can be so hard to
balance in creative work, but which strengthens the work in a successful execution.

Samuel Beckett: Waiting for Godot
So although this is admittedly not contemporary (the play premiered in 1953) I wanted to
note how much this work affected me. I stumbled upon it in the library. Waiting for Godot is
the type of work that makes me wish I one day could write something as this play (or do
anything as good as this for that matter). It's a quick read. I had to own the play, so I bought
the bilingual copy, as it was originally written in French. I highly suggest reading this.

Information on the new Summer 2k9 In Preparation coming soon.

An video installation that I saw a few weeks back:

http://www.adegru.org/screensaver2.html

Arend Helfer-deGryuter, goes to SAIC, I think he's a really great artist.

Nonsource Supported Links

Greetings,
I have been doing lots of research lately on artist's/writer's groups/spaces/sites lately and have added many of these to the Nonsource Supported Links. Take a look!
A

A monologue from How to Speak to the Dead, 2007-2008

Do you believe in the multiple worlds [theory]? If you do, then I can meet you in the past. But you will be scared because I am from the future, and you will be surprised at my age. I will not be the daughter you know but instead the daughter you would never know. I cannot save your life, because I am no scientist, but maybe we can get dinner and we can talk.

I will tell you, I am a time traveler. I will not tell you that you will die, because that would make you scared. I will try not to be upset at the sight of you, because after I explained my story, you would know something was wrong. You would know that you had died in the time I come from. I do not want you to know when you will die. I will instead act as if my excitement is due to the fact that I can travel to the past; that my time travel has worked. You will be proud of my achievements.

BFAW READ

these colors are soo wrong.
but nonetheless...

The Writing Program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago is pleased to present a reading by the second class of graduating BFA Writing Program students.

Including:
Patrick Anderson
Halle Butler
Zack Eliasz
Alyssa Martinez
Samuel Nigrosh
Sean O'Connell
William E. Porter
Marit Rogne

Taking place May 15th from 1:30-4 PM
in Theater 2 in the Gene Siskel at 164 N State St
All are welcome to come.
Reception to follow.
I look forward to seeing you there!