ankay’s blog

Hello everyone,

The following are definitions of some of the concepts that we saw in class today-

INTERLANGUAGE

→ noun

a language or form of language having features of two others, typically a pidgin or a version produced by a foreign learner.

“interlanguage noun“  The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Universidad de Valencia.  17 February 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e38920>

UNATTESTED

→ adj.
not existing in any documented form: if a will contains unattested changes, the changes will be disregarded although large masonry instruments were not unattested in the world, they were constructed infrequently.

• (Linguistics) denoting a form or usage or pronunciation of a word for which there is no evidence: logically possible but unattested word-formation.

“unattested adj.“  The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Universidad de Valencia.  17 February 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t183.e82417>

IMPLICATURE

→ noun
[mass noun] the action of implying a meaning beyond the literal sense of what is explicitly stated, for example saying the frame is nice and implying I don’t like the picture in it.

• [count noun] an implied meaning.

“implicature noun“  The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Universidad de Valencia.  17 February 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e37618>

PROTOLANGUAGE

→ noun
a hypothetical lost parent language from which actual languages are derived.

“protolanguage noun“  The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Universidad de Valencia.  17 February 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e62219>

FAMILIES OF LANGUAGES

A group of languages which are assumed to have arisen from a single source: ENGLISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, GREEK, PERSIAN, RUSSIAN, SANSKRIT, and WELSH are all members of the INDO-EUROPEAN language family, and are considered to have descended from a common ancestor. Common ancestry is established by finding systematic correspondences between languages: English repeatedly has /f/ where Latin has /p/ in words with similar meaning, as in father/pater, fish/piscis, flow/pluo rain. It also often has /s/ where Greek has /h/, as in six/héx, seven/heptá, serpent/hérpein to creep. In addition, English and German compare adjectives in similar ways, as in rich, richer, richest: reich, reicher, reichste. These and other correspondences indicate that the languages are cognate (genetically related). Various related words can be compared in order to reconstruct sections of a hypothetical ancestor language. The process of comparison and reconstruction is traditionally known as comparative PHILOLOGY, more recently as comparative historical linguistics. This process formed the backbone of 19c language study, though in the 20c it has become one branch among many. A ‘family tree’ diagram (not unlike a genealogy) is commonly used to represent the relationships between the members of a linguistic family, in which an initial parent language ‘gives birth’ to a number of ‘daughters’, which in turn give birth to others. This can be useful, but is rarely an accurate representation of how languages develop, since it suggests clean cuts between ‘generations’ and between ‘sister’ languages, and implies that languages always become more divergent. In fact, languages generally change gradually, and there is often considerable intermixing among those which remain geographically adjacent. See LANGUAGE CHANGE, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY.

“LANGUAGE FAMILY”  Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Ed. Tom McArthur. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Universidad de Valencia. 17 February 2009 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t29.e686

The different languages can be compared in order to establish similarities or differences between them. The idea of a family of languages is closely related to that of the genetic tree theory, which represents clear linguistic evidence of a close relationship between languages-

1. Ancestor language (Eg. Latin)
2. Daughter languages with respect to the parent language (Eg. Spanish)
3. Sister language(Eg. Italian)

We can talk about language families in the narrow sense (the nuclear family- parent and daughters), or in the broad sense (related languages).

GENETIC TREE THEORY

The genetic tree theory was proposed by August Schleicher in 1861-2, as we can see in the following bibliography, his model, the Stammbaumtheorie (family-tree theory), was a major development in the study of Indo-European languages-

August Schleicher

August Schleicher (February 19, 1821 – December 6, 1868) was a German linguist. His great work was A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, in which he attempted to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language. August Schleicher (upload from German wikipedia) This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. … February 19 is the 50th day of the year in the Gregorian Calendar. … 1821 was a common year starting on Monday (see link for calendar). … December 6 is the 340th day (341st on leap years) of the year in the Gregorian calendar. … 1868 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar). … Linguistics is the scientific study of human language, and someone who engages in this study is called a linguist. … Grammar is the discovery, enunciation, and study of rules governing the use of language. … The Indo-European languages include some 443 (SIL estimate) languages and dialects, including most of the major language families of Europe, as well as many languages of Southwest and South Asia, which belong to a single superfamily. … The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages. …

August Schleicher was born in Meiningen (Duchy Saxe-Meiningen, southwest of Weimar in the Thuringian Forest). He began his career studying theology and Indo-European, especially Slavic languages. Influenced by Hegel, he formed the theory that a language is an organism, with periods of development, maturity, and decline. In 1850 Schleicher completed a monograph systematically describing the languages of Europe, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht (The languages of Europe in systematic perspective). He explicitly represented languages as perfectly natural organisms that could most conveniently be described using terms drawn from biology e.g., genus, species, and variety. Schleicher claimed that he himself had been convinced of the natural descent and competition of languages before he had read Darwin’s Origin of Species. He invented a system of language classification that resembled a botanical taxonomy, tracing groups of related languages and arranging them in a genealogical tree. His model, the Stammbaumtheorie (family-tree theory), was a major development in the study of Indo-European languages. To show how Indo-European might have looked he created a short tale, Schleicher’s fable, to exemplify both words and known culture. He first introduced a graphic representation of a Stammbaum in articles published in 1853. By the time of the publication of his Deutsche Sprache (German language) (1860) he had begun to use trees to illustrate language descent. Schleicher is commonly recognized as the first linguist to portray language development using the figure of a tree. For the most part, however, Darwin’s ideas simply overlaid the fundamental features of Schleicher’s prior evolutionary project, which derived from the work of those individuals immersed in German romanticism and idealism especially Humboldt and Hegel. August Schleicher died from tuberculosis at age of 47 in Jena (Duchy Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Thuringia).

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/August_Schleicher

A branching diagram in which different branches are connected only at a point of origin, and all are connected, directly or indirectly, to one node which is the origin of the whole: e.g. a ‘family tree’ which displays the genetic classification of languages, a phrase structure tree, a dependency tree.

“tree diagram”  The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. P. H. Matthews. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Universidad de Valencia. 17 February 2009 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t36.e3478

WAVE THEORY

In historical linguistics, the wave model or wave theory (German Wellentheorie) is a model of language change in which new features of a language spread from a central point in continuously weakening concentric circles, similar to the waves created when a stone is thrown into a body of water. This should lead to convergence among dissimilar languages. The theory was directed against the doctrine of sound laws and the strict tree model introduced by the Neogrammarians and laid the foundations of modern sociolinguistics. Advocacy of the wave theory is attributed to Johannes Schmidt and Hugo Schuchardt. In modern linguistics, the wave model has contributed greatly to improve the tree model approach of the Comparative method.^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_model_(linguistics)

We also spoke about the reconstruction of non existent languages and the DEF, a procedure for determining older, non recorded or insufficiently attested stages of a language based on our knowledge of possible types of change (e.g. a possible sound change).

We referred to phonetically motivated change (simplicity in articulatory effort), and phonologically motivated change (maximal distinctiveness of speech sounds).We then emphasised the importance of studying synchronic language data in order to understand the current state of the language.

The final point that we discussed was the possible types of reconstruction that exist, and we mentioned the language-internal reconstruction (if the historical forms are reconstructed on the basis of systematic relationships within a single language- e.g. “ablaut” in Indo European based on Greek).

ablaut

→ noun
[mass noun] alternation in the vowels of related word forms, especially in Germanic strong verbs (e.g. in sing, sang, sung).
- ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from German, from ab ‘off’ + Laut ‘sound’.

“ablaut noun“  The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Universidad de Valencia.  17 February 2009  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e136>

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

The following is a series of questions and answers based on the article by Milroy about language variability:

What is more common in language uniformity or variability?

Variability is a far more prominent characteristic in language than uniformity.

What kinds of variability exist?

Variability in language can depend on historical, geographical and social factors.

How do we decide if a particular group of speakers belong to a particular dialect or language?

We generally base our conclusions on historical, geographical, economical and political notions.

Saussure emphasized the importance of synchronic descriptions of languages rather than diachronic. He and his disciples (structuralists) focused on language at different periods as finite entities. Is this reasonable?

I believe that this standpoint is unreasonable if we take into consideration the fact that languages are variable- they constantly change. This means that it makes sense to study diachronic linguistics in order to obtain a better understanding of the overall evolution of the language.

The unattested states of language were seen as transitional stages in which the structure of a language was, as it were, disturbed. This made linguistic change look abnormal. Is it abnormal?

Linguistic change is not abnormal- languages naturally undergo a state of evolution. The changes brought about by this evolutionary process in no way reflect a “disturbed structure”, they simply show us that languages progress in order to adapt to new situations.

Milroy (1992: 3) says “the equation of uniformity with structuredness or regularity is most evident in popular (non-professional) attitudes to language: one variety –usually a standard language – is considered to be correct and regular, and others –usually ‘non-standard’ dialects – are thought to be incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant. Furthermore, linguistic changes in progress are commonly perceived as ‘errors’. Thus although everyone knows that language is variable, many people believe that invariance is nonetheless to be desired, and professional scholars of language have not been immune to the consequences of these same beliefs.”

Can you think of any example of non-professional attitudes to your own language?

Even though it is not my vernacular language, I believe that we can productively apply these ideas to the current situation of Valencian.

First of all, we can point out that there is a clear lack of consensus as to whether the varieties (Valenciano, Catalán and Mallorquin) constitute different languages or not.

Many also show a disregard towards the language and consider it as a “non-standard” dialect due to many factors, such as the use of constant castellanisms or geographical variations. This “incorrect” usage is perpetuating the misconception of an irregular or deviant language, whereas, in reality, we are simply observing a necessary evolutionary process brought about by the years of suppression that Valencian underwent.

Why does Milroy use “scare quotes” around non-standard and errors?

He does this because he is expressing non-professional ideas which he does not agree with.

Are non-standard dialects “incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical and deviant.”?

I suppose that this would depend on what we consider to be a non-standard dialect. Any language which serves for the purpose of communication and which has a set of grammatical rules that are complied to shouldn’t be regarded as incorrect, irregular, ungrammatical or deviant, they are simply different to the languages commonly thought of as “standard” ones.

Which of these systems is more irregular? Why?

Myself Yourself Himself Herself Ourselves Themselves

Myself Yourself Hisself Herself Ourselves Theirselves

Whilst we can say that the second system is certainly more regular than the first one, it isn’t considered as standard because the terms “hisself” and “theirselves” are not commonly used because they are not correct in grammatical terms. We can affirm that the reflexive pronouns in the first column are accepted as grammatically “normative”.

We can also take into consideration the following information about the usage of “hisself” and “theirselves”, which shows us that even though they are not considered as grammatically correct, they are prevalent in certain contexts-

“Speakers of some vernacular American dialects, particularly in the South, may use the possessive reflexive form hisself instead of himself (as in He cut hisself shaving) and theirselves or theirself for themselves (as in They found theirselves alone). These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. In Standard English, the pattern of reflexive pronoun forms shows slightly irregular patterning; all forms but two are composed of the possessive form of the pronoun and –self or –selves, as in myself or ourselves. The exceptions are himself and themselves, which are formed by attaching the suffix –self/–selves to the object forms of he and they rather than their possessive forms. Speakers who use hisself and theirselves are smoothing out the pattern’s inconsistencies by applying the same rule to all forms in the set. •A further regularization is the use of –self regardless of number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself and theirself is made clear by the presence of the plural forms our– and their–. Hisself and theirselves have origins in British English and are still prevalent today in vernacular speech in England.”

(The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.)

“… much of the change generally accepted body of knowledge on which theories of change are based depends on quite narrow interpretations of written data and decontexutalized citation forms (whether written or spoken), rather than on observation of spoken language in context (situated speech). (Milroy 1992: 5) Why do you think this is so?

I believe that this is due to the extreme variability of spoken language in context. If we were to attempt to base our theories of change (in languages) on situated speech, we would find that most people don’t tend to follow grammatical rules and often use colloquialisms, which lead to the destructuralisation of language. We can also refer to the fact that everyone has their own personal speech patterns (idiolects). Due to these factors, complications can arise when we interpret the changes that occur in speech, and because of this, theories are generally based on decontextualized language.

Any description of a language involves norms? Think of the descriptions of your own language. Why is this so? For example: He ate the pie already is considered to be non-standard in which variety of English and perfectly acceptable in which other?

Even though we refer to norms and rules when we discuss languages, we must also keep in mind that there are always exceptions to said rules, and that in the colloquial variety there is a tendency to overlook them. The phrase “he ate the pie already” might be considered as acceptable in colloquial speech, however, in a more formal, academic context, we ought to say “he has already eaten the pie”.

What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammars?

Descriptive Grammar:

A descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually used by its speakers and then attempts to analyse it and formulate rules about the structure. Descriptive grammar does not deal with what is good or bad language use; forms and structures that might not be used by speakers of Standard English would be regarded as valid and included. It is a grammar based on the way a language actually is and not how some think it should be.

Prescriptive Grammar:

A prescriptive grammar lays out rules about the structure of a language. Unlike a descriptive grammar it deals with what the grammarian believes to be right and wrong, good or bad language use; not following the rules will generate incorrect language.

(http://www.english-for-students.com/Descriptive-and-Prescriptive.html)

Weinreich, Labov and Herzog’s (1968) empirical foundations of language change:

Constraints: what changes are possible and what are not

Embedding: how change spreads from a central point through a speech community

Evaluation: social responses to language change (prestige overt and covert attitudes to language, linguistic stereotyping and notions on correctness).

Transition: “the intervening stages which can be observed, or which must be posited, between any two forms of a language defined for a language community at different times” Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968: 101)

Actuation: Why particular changes take place at a particular time.

What do you think the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” mean? How are they opposed?

The prestige motivation for change refers to the way in which we view our language and the how others speak it. At times, we do not speak in a certain manner because we do not feel that it would be correct to do so, and we tend to stereotype others who use terminology considered as ungrammatical or deviant. The prestige motivation for change shows us how we often use language to express our superior social status.

With regards to the solidarity constraint, we can observe the way in which we use language to feel on par with our peers. This often means that our language will vary depending on the social context in which we find ourselves. As a speech community, we tend to imitate others in order to fit in and feel accepted, collectively altering our language.

We can conclude by saying that the “prestige motivation for change” and the “solidarity constraint” are opposed due to the fact that the first is linked to the notion of wanting to stand out and indicate a superior social status, whereas the second is a collective movement, related to the idea of fitting in socially.

Sound change: post-vocalic /r/ in New York. The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.

Post-vocalic /r/ in New York

Many of us who speak English as a native language pronounce words like darling, far, bore or near the same as we write them: with vowel followed by r in the same syllable. But there are many other English speakers who do not pronounce the r – sound in this place (called ‘postvocalic r’) – although they have the sound everywhere else, like at the beginning of a word. Linguists use the classy terms rhotic and non-rhotic for these two pronunciations.

In some people’s speech this ‘dropped’ r reappears when the word is followed by a vowel, so you sometimes hear nevah but never again. Such speakers occasionally go on to insert an r where it doesn’t belong, and say sofa but sofer and chair .

Looked at geographically, American speakers who most commonly drop the r (in what follows we’ll occasionally call this the ‘r-less’ pronunciation) are those from Eastern New England and parts of the South, particularly the coastal area where the old ‘plantation’ culture once existed. It is also part of Black English Vernacular speech. Until recently, dropping the r was part of New York speech as well, though more and more New Yorkers seem to be perceiving it as ‘vulgar’ and avoiding this pronunciation. Even though there is no officially recognized ’standard’ English in the U.S., ‘r-speakers’ are clearly an overwhelming majority, something you hear reflected in the mass media.

British speakers today whose speech is closest to standard British English (called ‘Received Pronunciation’) do not pronounce r after vowel. Postvocalic r was still regularly pronounced in English speech back in Elizabethan times, and it was around that time (l6th century) that the ‘r-less’ pronunciation started spreading across much of England. It did not spread as far as Ireland and Scotland, which is why we hear the ‘r’ pronunciation from the Irish and the Scots today. Many of the original immigrants to the colonies were from Scotland and Ireland, although at the time of settlement most English speakers were still pronouncing r after vowel too.

http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/southern/dahling/

The change from long ā to ō in some dialects of English.

The father-bother merger is a merger of the Early Modern English vowels /ɑː/ and /ɒ/ that occurs in almost all varieties of North American English (exceptions are accents in northeastern New England, such as the Boston accent, and in New York City). In those accents with the merger father and bother rhyme, and Kahn and con are homophonous as [kɑn]. Unrounding of EME /ɒ/ is found also in Norwich, the West Country, the West Midlands and in Hiberno-English, but apparently with no phonemic merger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_low_back_vowels#Father.E2.80.93bother_merger

Actuation: Why did /k/ palatalize before certain front vowels? PrsE: cheese, German käse English/Norse doublets shirt/skirt?

The place and degree of palatization varied in order to differentiate the meaning between the word doublets.

What is the biological metaphor in language change?

Like a biological species defined by the potential of its members to interbreed and procreate offspring of the same kind, a language can be defined as “a population of idiolects that enable their hosts to communicate with and understand one another”

(Exploring Language Change By Mari C. Jones, Ishtla Singh Edition: illustrated, revised. Published by Routledge, 2005).

The biological metaphor in language change can also be related to the fact that languages are passed from one generation to the next, evolving step by step.

What is the difference between internal and external histories of a language?

“All kinds of language change can basically be assigned to one of two types: either the change is caused by a structural requirement of the language — this is internally motivated change — or it does not in which case one speaks of externally motivated change.

Internally motivated change usually leads to balance in the system, the removal of marked elements, the analogical spread of regular forms or the like. As language consists of various modules on various levels, a change in one quarter may lead to an imbalance in another and provoke a further change.”

(http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_InternalExternal.htm)

Look up Neogrammarians and lexical diffusion. Why are they often found in the same paragraph or chapter?

The terms are often found in the same paragraph because the theory of lexical diffusion is opposed to the Neogrammarian hypothesis. As Milroy explains, lexical diffusion (a theory proposed by William Wang in 1969) refers to the fact that all sound changes derive from a variation of a single word or a small group of words that later affects other words with similar characteristics, but don’t necessarily have an effect on all words that they potentially could do. The Neogrammarian hypothesis states that a given sound change applies to all words with related features simultaneously. Milroy tells us that sound changes have normally been observed to spread gradually through the lexicon (lexical diffusion), and that there is no evidence to support the Neogrammarian assumption.

Look up social norm-enforcement, childish errors and slips of the tongue. What have they to do with language change?

A social norm is the sociological term for the behavioural expectations and cues within a society or group. They have been defined as “the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. These rules may be explicit or implicit. The social norms indicate the established and approved ways of doing things, of dress, of speech and of appearance. These vary and evolve not only through time but also vary from one age group to another and between social classes and social groups. What is deemed to be acceptable dress, speech or behaviour in one social group may not be accepted in another. Deference to the social norms maintains one’s acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group. What is deemed acceptable to young people is often unacceptable to elderly people; this difference is caused by the different social norms that operate and are tacitly agreed-upon in such different groups of people. Social norms tend to be tacitly established and maintained through body language and non-verbal communication between people in their normal social discourse. We soon come to know when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes and when not to. We also come to know through experience what types of people we can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Mostly this knowledge is derived experientially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)

With regards to ‘childish’ errors in language, we can say that children often make mistakes due to their lack of knowledge of possible linguistic irregularities (I “drinked” my water etc.).

A slip of the tongue is an error in speaking in which a word is pronounced incorrectly, or in which the speaker says something unintentionally.

(http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/slip+of+the+tongue)

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

This section of my blog will be dedicated to my work based on the lesson “Introduction to the History of the English Language”. Here, I will include definitions of important concepts and information that I consider relevant to the course, as well as personal reflections as to my progress.

I hope that these insights will prove both interesting and useful.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

This is just an entry to say that I have completed my second paper, and am very happy with the final product, even if I do say so myself! I feel that I have worked to the best of my ability, and that the hard work has payed off, because I have created a piece of work that I can feel proud of.

This is the address of my second paper-

http://mural.uv.es/ankay/secondpaper.htm

I’d better carry on studying now for tomorrow’s exam.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

Today I completed the construction of the analysis of the external spaces in the hypertext.

This process was extremely time consuming and I am glad to have reached the point that I am at. I hope to finish the construction of the analysis of the internal spaces as soon as possible.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

This afternoon I went to a tutorial session with Vicente Fores, and he helped me resolve some of the doubts that I had about my project. He also told me that so far I am on the right track, and that was obviously good to hear.

I have also been carrying on with the construction side of the internal spatial elements.

Following is an e-mail that I sent to Jackson that I have decided to display on my blog.

Dear Shelley,

My name is Annabel Kay and I am studying English Philology at the
University of Valencia. As part of my course, I have a lesson called
English Narrative, in which we have been learning about hypertext
literature. At present, I am constructing a project based on your work
"My Body, A Wunderkammer". 

The first reason that I am writing to you is to let you know how much I
have enjoyed reading and analysing the different parts of your
hypertext, and getting and insight into your views on the relationship
between human identity and the body. 

Another reason that I wanted to contact you was to ask you a few
questions about the specific topic that I have been focusing my analysis
on: the internal and external spaces in the hypertext. 

With regards to the external spatial references in the piece, I was
wondering why you decided to display the text in the way that you did
(using a picture of the human body that leads us to separate individual
fragments), and whether you would prefer that your readers followed the
links on each page in a specific order. Is there a reason behind the
"phantom" and the "tail" parts of the body? Would you consider all of
your hypertexts as an extension of each other, or do you prefer to think
of them as separate entities? (I ask this mainly because of the
stylistical and thematical similarities between "My Body, A
Wunderkammer" and "Patchwork Girl").

I was also hoping that you could give me a rough idea as to how much of
the hypertext is autobiographical- is it true, for example, that you
have 26 tattoos in the colour of your own skin?  Did you really insert
pages of books where you say you did?! 

Another thing that struck me when analysing the internal spaces that you
mention throughout the piece is how descriptive the language that you
use is: was the creation of a realistic text one of your main objectives
when writing?

Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me and for
introducing me to the world of hypertext literature,

Annabel K.

Ps. I will be publishing my website (with the project on "My Body, A
Wunderkammer", titled "Second Paper") on the 10th of December. This is
the address- http://mural.uv.es/ankay/. I have also created a blog, in
which I have been summarising my progress on the project-
http://ankay.blogs.uv.es

I am going to get on with my paper now. I hope to report back as soon as possible.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

I have spent the last two days focusing on organising the section of my second paper that has to do with the internal spaces in the hypertext. The process has been time consuming (today alone I have spent about 6 hours on the construction side of the project), but I would say that I am about half way there now. I hope to finish this as soon as possible in order to begin to structure my analysis of the external spaces.

Another finding that I made today was an interview with Shelly Jackson, in which she expresses her views on hypertext literature, and the topic of the body, a recurring theme in almost all of her pieces. Following are some of the most interesting and relevant fragments in terms of my second paper:

BT: You’re well-known for your work of hypertext fiction, Patchwork Girl. What was different about creating a print book?

SJ: My mind doesn’t travel in a straight line, and neither do my stories. I like digression and interruption and the clash of styles and voices. I like weirdo formal devices. I probably don’t have to point out that these are not conventionally understood to be good things! But in hypertext, plural voices or storylines can make perfect sense. In print, it’s harder to make this work; you can’t ignore the linearity of the form, the fact that page one is followed by page two is followed by page three, and so on. (Usually. There are exceptions.) Sometimes I feel like I am trying to squeeze three dimensions into two, like trying to get a broken umbrella to go back in its little condom. But there are pleasures specific to linear flow (and also, perversely, to the interruption of that flow); I wrote this book under their influence.

BT: Following that question, you’ve also worked in other types of artistic mediums — how does this work in with your writing? Is it just another outlet for creativity?

SJ: When I was an art student a professor took me aside and told me I had better make up my mind whether or not I was serious about art, because there was only one way to succeed: focus. I have completely ignored this advice. Sometimes this means shuttling manically between art and writing and other, more unmentionable obsessions. More and more, though, and partly because of the ease of mixing media in electronic work, I’ve come to see all these projects as interrelated. In my writing, I often run a central image through a sort of translation process to yield a new set of images: the central image in “Nerve” turns up in the language of fashion reporting, a public service message from the fire department, and a children’s rainy day activities book. It’s not such a big leap to add songs or paintings. I guess there might be a point at which enough is too much, as Franklin Pangborn said in some movie or other, but I haven’t found it yet. In my opinion, too much is generally not quite enough.

BT: You’ve also got a very interesting website, www.ineradicablestain.com. How does having a strong Internet presence affect your relation to readers and fans?

SJ: I get email from around the world: a student in Czechoslovakia is writing a thesis on Patchwork Girl, a Romanian newspaper and a Greek journal interview me, a web site in Italy wants a photograph of my elbow, and somebody at an undisclosed location wants to tell me what his scabs smell like. I’m so lucky!

BT: The body, as it is represented in pieces, is a recurring theme in your writing, providing a metaphor that is both abstract (the body is a text, and the text is a body) and material (the body as skin, fluids, organs). Why this fascination?

SJ: The body is the original proof that the material world is lovable, and also terrible, and full of news. We are caught up in this awkward love affair between things and ideas. This mismatch that won’t split up is the basis of all the art forms: there’s all this stuff lying around- tubes of paint, clay, language-that looks inscrutable and meaningless, but the same stuff in a new arrangement can break your heart. How does that work? I’m stuck on the fact that the body is made of stuff, and yet it has soul. In fact, we only know soul through the body. But it is easier to think about the thingliness of bodies when they are taken to pieces. (Whole bodies are, well, people, and people are not easily understood as stuff.) In The Melancholy of Anatomy I take a good look at some of the stuff the body sheds or oozes: hair, milk, blood. That unnerving stain on the carpet was once part of your body. Now it’s something you should probably clean up. What happened in between? I became fascinated with that question, and with those entities that seem permanently suspended somewhere between our selves and the outside world, sperm (again) being a most perfect example because it has a fugitive and partial life of its own. Is it a little animal? Is it a mess? Is it part of you, and at what point does it become part of someone else?

Jackson is certainly a woman with a unique outlook on life and an even more unique literary style.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

Today I have been putting together my second paper and deciding on how to format the information that I will be including. In the end, I decided it would be best to include two separate areas (one dedicated to the internal spacial elements and one with information about the external ones). I have also been using quotes from the original hypertext in order to make my ideas as clear as posible.

I still have a relatively long way to go, but I am pleased that I have managed to start with the gathering together and organising of the different parts of my project.

Another interesting finding that I made today was the following website, which contains various articles about the notion of the self and the body in hypertexts (many of which will hopefully help me in my analysis).

Ideas of the Body and Self

• David Goldberg, New Perverse Logic: The Interface of Technology and Eroticism in J.G. Ballard’s Crash and William Gibson’s Neuromancer
• Donna J. Haraway, Manifesto for Cyborgs (at Rochester)
• Donna J. Haraway on the Blurred Boundary of Physical and Nonphysical
• The Cultural Value of Monsters
• Andres Luco, First Awakenings
• Jeff Pack’s The Fragmented Self
• Jeff Pack’s Growing Up Digerate — An Autobiography in Terms of Computers and Computer Games
• Allucquere Rosanne Stone, Will the Real Body Please Stand Up? (at Rochester)
• Linda Marie Walker, On Body and Voice –Four Cries
• Medical Technology and Redefinitions of the Body
• Carrie Watterson. The Veiling of Homoerotic Desire in Roland Barthes’ S/Z
• Matt Woodward’s Cybersex in Writing (Syracuse U.)
• Sadie Plant’s Zeros + Ones: A Review by Laura Lee

http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/body/bodyov.html

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

This weekend I was carrying on with my analysis of the hypertext (internal spacial elements), when I decided to look into the exact meaning of the concept of “space”, in order to better understand the focal point of my paper. Here are my findings:

Website 1

Extension, considered independently of anything which it may contain; that which makes extended objects conceivable and possible.

Place, having more or less extension; room.

A quantity or portion of extension; distance from one thing to another; an interval between any two or more objects; as, the space between two stars or two hills; the sound was heard for the space of a mile.

Quantity of time; an interval between two points of time; duration; time.

A short time; a while.

Walk; track; path; course.

A small piece of metal cast lower than a face type, so as not to receive the ink in printing, — used to separate words or letters.

The distance or interval between words or letters in the lines, or between lines, as in books.

One of the intervals, or open places, between the lines of the staff.

To walk; to rove; to roam.

To arrange or adjust the spaces in or between; as, to space words, lines, or letters.

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/sp/space221985.html

Website 2

Function:

noun

Usage:

often attributive

Etymology:

Middle English, from Anglo-French espace, space, from Latin spatium area, room, interval of space or time

Date:

14th century

1: a period of time ; also : its duration2 a: a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance , area , volume b: an extent set apart or available <parking space> <floor space> c: the distance from other people or things that a person needs in order to remain comfortable <invading my personal space>3: one of the degrees between or above or below the lines of a musical staff — compare line4 a: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time> b: physical space independent of what occupies it —called also absolute space5: the region beyond the earth’s atmosphere or beyond the solar system6 a: a blank area separating words or lines b: material used to produce such blank area ; especially : a piece of type less than one en in width7: a set of mathematical elements and especially of abstractions of all the points on a line, in a plane, or in physical space ; especially : a set of mathematical entities with a set of axioms of geometric character — compare metric space , topological space , vector space8 a: linage b: broadcast time available especially to advertisers9: accommodations on a public vehicle10 a: the opportunity to assert or experience one’s identity or needs freely b: an opportunity for privacy or time to oneself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space

Website 3

1. 1. Mathematics. A set of elements or points satisfying specified geometric postulates: non-Euclidean space.
   2. The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists.
2. 1. The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.
   2. The region of this expanse beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
3. 1. An extent or expanse of a surface or three-dimensional area: Water covered a large space at the end of the valley.
   2. A blank or empty area: the spaces between words.
   3. An area provided for a particular purpose: a parking space.
4. Reserved or available accommodation on a public transportation vehicle.
5. 1. A period or interval of time.
   2. A little while: Let’s rest for a space.
6. Sufficient freedom from external pressure to develop or explore one’s needs, interests, and individuality: “The need for personal space inevitably asserts itself” (Maggie Scarf).
7. Music. One of the intervals between the lines of a staff.
8. Printing. One of the blank pieces of type or other means used for separating words or characters.
9. One of the intervals during the telegraphic transmission of a message when the key is open or not in contact.
10. Blank sections in printed material or broadcast time available for use by advertisers.

http://www.answers.com/topic/space

These definitions made me reflect upon the direct relation between the concepts of space and time (“Quantity of time; an interval between two points of time; duration”).

This reflection led me to think about how Jackson relates the two concepts in the hypertext (the way that the spaces she describes are all temporally contextual), and the influence that external temporal elements (how much time we dedicate to the reading of each part of the text etc.) also have.

Another clear link between space and time in this context is the role that the society that we live in has on our reading habits and thought processes. An example of the effects that the era and place in which we find ourselves can have on our reading habits is the fact that the notion of hypertexts is relatively new to someone of my generation. I would imagine that in the future, hypertext fiction will become more “mainstream”, so to speak.

Another example of the sociological effects of space and time in reading, which directly relates to Jackson’s hypertext, is the fact that many of the situations described would be perceived differently, according to the gender and age of the reader (on many occasions, the author explains how difficult her adolescence was, due to the changes that occurred in her body, that she didn’t know how to deal with (“But the arrival of breasts was traumatic” http://www.altx.com/thebody/breasts.html), or her experiences with piercings or tattoos).

That’s all for today, I hope to report back soon with a summary of my progress on the construction of the different parts of my second paper.

Until next time,

Annabel.

Hello everyone,

Today, whilst searching the web for information that might help me to construct my second paper, I came across a site which I found particularly interesting and well put together by the lecturers of literature studies at the Faculty of “Ciencias de la Información” (Universidad Complutense de Madrid):

http://www.ucm.es/info/especulo/hipertulia2/index.htm

(“Tras unos años de inactividad, Hipertulia regresa con el mismo espíritu con el que nació: ser un centro de reunión para todos aquellos interesados en el mundo del hipertexto, ya sea desde el ámbito de la docencia, la investigación la creación o cualquiera de sus aplicaciones”).

Here, as well as various articles related to hypertext literature, blogs about the future of the book, and information about the use of hypertext technology in educational contexts, we can also find links to four hypertexts in Spanish. I especially liked the following works:

Carlos Labbé

Pentagonal: incluídos tú y yo.

Dora García
Heartbeat.

http://www.ucm.es/info/especulo/hipertulia2/literatura.html

I also found a website called “Our Progressive Dinner”, which features web-specific, English-language literary works by international women. The works are from Carolyn Guertin’s Assemblage, an extensive archive of women in electonic literature. Assemblage is featured as part of the website of trAce, an online community and consultancy which encourages writers to discuss writing, share their work, collaborate and experiment online. Based at The Nottingham Trent University in the U.K., trAce is always eager to showcase new web-specific works and provide development opportunities for writers working on the internet.

I like the fact that this website is dedicated to female authors, because I feel that I can get a better perspective on a range of hypertextual works created by women, so that in turn, I can compare these texts to Shelley Jackson’s.

Following is a list of the authors included in the site:

Annie Abrahams Mary Kim Arnold Di Ball Giselle Beiguelman Zoe Beloff Natalie Bookchin Diane Caney Linda Carroli & Josephine Wilson Martha Conway M.D. Coverley Francesca da Rimini Claire Dinsmore Angie Eng Alicia Felberbaum Jacalyn Lopez Garcia geniwate Carolyn Guertin Carolyn Guyer Shelley Jackson JeanNet & Raquel Rivera Tina La Porta Deena Larsen Jennifer Ley Olia Lialina Cathy Marshall Judy Malloy MEZ (Mary Ann Breeze) Ruth Nestvold Lehan Ramsay Christy Sheffield Sanford Diana Slattery Jyanni Steffensen Stephanie Strickland Kim Stringfellow Sue Thomas & Teri Hoskin Marta Werner Lori Weidenhammer Leonie Winson Adrianne Wortzel

After exploring the hypertexts of a number of these authors, I must admit that I am surprised at how many interesting and eye opening works can be found on the web. I will definitely be returning to a number of these sites after I have finished my analysis of “My Body, A Wunderkammer”.

Getting back to my Second Paper, in furthering my analysis of the links in the text today, I came across a fragment which I found poignant and extremely reflective of the feelings of Jackson on her body as well as the process of construction of her hypertext:

“In the course of writing these reminiscences, I increasingly began to conceive of my body as a great cabinet of curiosities. Some of those many recondite drawers slide easily out and whack you on the shins, some need a little wax and sandpaper. Inside the drawers are folded sheets of cheap blue-lined paper, pages from journals or school reports, with pictures and diagrams pasted in. There are drawings, biological specimens with neat labels, inscrutable items with no labels, stains from bygone experiments, stoppered bottles and broken vials and their spilled, dried contents, in which a squadron of tiny fruit flies met their sticky deaths. There are slips of paper referring you to other drawers, unlabelled keys (you may despair of finding the locks they fit), and there are drawers within the drawers, behind sliding panels or false bottoms. I have found every drawer to be both bottomless and intricately connected to every other drawer, such that there can be no final unpacking. But you don’t approach a cabinet of wonders with an inventory in hand. You open drawers at random. You smudge the glass jar in which the two-headed piglet sleeps. You filch one of Tom Thumb’s calling cards. You read page two of a letter; one and three are missing, and you leave off in the middle of a sentence.

As a matter of fact, I am making a replica of this text: a huge wooden chest in the shape of my body, with innumerable drawers in which I will store my findings. Some of the drawers will be large and c a p a c i o u s, some smaller than matchboxes. Some will be disguised, some will be booby-trapped. I will hide secret buttons, levers and locks in my carved folds and crevices. You will have to feel your way in”.

http://www.altx.com/thebody/cabinet.html

Another aspect of the text which I hadn’t yet considered was the meaning of the word “wunderkammer” (which appears in the title), so I consequently looked it up and found the following defintion:

Cabinets of curiosities (also known as Wunderkammer, Cabinets of Wonder, or wonder-rooms) were encyclopedic collections of types of objects whose categorical boundaries were, in Renaissance Europe, yet to be defined. Modern science would categorize the objects included as belonging to natural history (sometimes faked), geology, ethnography, archaeology, religious or historical relics, works of art (including cabinet paintings) and antiquities. “The Kunstkammer was regarded as a microcosm or theater of the world, and a memory theater. The Kunstkammer conveyed symbolically the patron’s control of the world through its indoor, microscopic reproduction.”^[1] Of Charles I of England‘s collection, Peter Thomas has succinctly stated, “The Kunstkabinett itself was a form of propaganda”^[2] Besides the most famous, best documented cabinets of rulers and aristocrats, members of the merchant class and early practitioners of science in Europe, formed collections that were precursors to museums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderkammer

The idea of the body as an object which has yet to be defined certaintly makes sense when I relate it to the constant physical changes and instability that Jackson refers to throughout the hypertext. In fact, even she herself speaks of “a great cabinet of curiosities“, in the quote that I have mentioned above.

I feel that with every new reading of various fragments of the hypertext, I gradually understanding the motives behind its creation.

Until next time,

Annabel.