<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>introvert.net &#187; metamagical themas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://introvert.net/blog/category/metamagical-themas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://introvert.net/blog</link>
	<description>t e whalen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:34:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Metamagical Themas: Chs. 1 &amp; 2 (self-referential sentences)</title>
		<link>http://introvert.net/blog/2009/05/17/metamagical-themas-self-referential-sentences/</link>
		<comments>http://introvert.net/blog/2009/05/17/metamagical-themas-self-referential-sentences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 22:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metamagical themas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://introvert.net/blog/?p=184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.librarything.com/work/24290/details/43846339"><img class="alignleft" title="metamagical themas cover" src="/cgi-bin/ltcovers.php?isbn=0465045669&#38;size=medium" alt="" width="95" height="136" /></a>

The first two chapters of Metamagical Themas are on the topic of self-referential sentences. These chapters had a very nostalgic feel for me, reminding me of a much younger version of myself, somehow. I have the feeling that 15-year-old&#8230;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.librarything.com/work/24290/details/43846339"><img class="alignleft" title="metamagical themas cover" src="/cgi-bin/ltcovers.php?isbn=0465045669&amp;size=medium" alt="" width="95" height="136" /></a></p>

<p>The first two chapters of Metamagical Themas are on the topic of self-referential sentences. These chapters had a very nostalgic feel for me, reminding me of a much younger version of myself, somehow. I have the feeling that 15-year-old Ted would have found this sort of thing really inspiring, but to 31-year-old me it feels a little juvenile. Maybe I&#8217;m a little less interested in this kind of abstraction these days. That language can be twisted into a self-referencing pretzel doesn&#8217;t surprise me the way it would have when I was younger. There&#8217;s still a little<em> frisson</em> for me in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox">Epimenides Paradox</a>, but stepping back, self-reference doesn&#8217;t have the same thrill it used to.</p>

<p>From a cognitive perspective, I&#8217;d have to divide self-referencing sentences into two categories: those which are in some sense about themselves (mostly containing the phrase &#8220;this sentence&#8221;, and those which require the hypothesis of the sentence-as-its-own-author. Consider the difference between &#8220;This sentence has five words.&#8221; and &#8220;I have four words.&#8221; The former seems less cognitively complex than the latter, mainly because understanding &#8220;I&#8221; as referring to the sentence itself, rather than the author of the sentence, requires a big conceptual leap. Imagining both sentences spoken aloud, and the problem is thrown into even sharper relief. It&#8217;s hard to picture someone understanding the spoken sentence &#8220;I am the meaning of this sentence,&#8221; in the same way as when they encounter it on the page.</p>

<p>Thinking about it a little more, I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;m on board with describing a sentence as self-referential in the first place. Looking back on my two or three undergraduate courses in linguistics, I seem to remember that <em>reference</em> is something only <em>speakers</em> can do. So, it&#8217;s more correct to say that the speaker is referencing the sentence than to say that the sentence is referencing itself. This falls into an area of <em>pragmatics</em> (which is a linguistics class I really wanted to take in undergrad, but didn&#8217;t). There&#8217;s this thing called <em>deixis</em>, which is when the meaning of some words in an utterance requires contextual information. For instance, understanding &#8220;I&#8217;m sick of living here, because I can&#8217;t get decent Thai food&#8221; requires some context, allowing you to fill in that &#8220;here&#8221; refers to Ann Arbor. When the referent of an expression is itself part of the discourse, the situation is called <em>discourse deixis</em>, and when the deictic expression refers to the expression or speech act in which it occurs, it&#8217;s called<em> token-reflexive discourse deixis</em>. So something like &#8220;This sentence is true&#8221; is an example of token-reflexive discourse deixis, and now that it&#8217;s got a name, it doesn&#8217;t seem so mysterious, does it? There is something a little mysterious going on in &#8220;this sentence&#8221;, in that it&#8217;s both <em>definite</em> and somewhat <em>deictic</em>.</p>

<p>But, there&#8217;s not a lot that&#8217;s linguistically or psychologically interesting about &#8220;When you&#8217;re not looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish.&#8221; other than the impossibility. We do stuff like this all the time in real life. I&#8217;ll say something like, &#8220;You were really drunk last weekend! You were walking around like this, and your voice sounded crazy like this!&#8221; And I&#8217;ll do it in a high-pitched squeal while shambling around like a zombie.</p>

<p>Alternatively, the sentence &#8220;When you&#8217;re not reading me, I&#8217;m written in Spanish.&#8221; is much more interesting, since it&#8217;s something that doesn&#8217;t work as an actual utterance. We&#8217;re required to imagine the sentence as its own speaker in order to make it intelligible. When you use &#8220;I&#8221;, you using what linguists might call <em>person deixis </em>(referring to a person in context), but here &#8220;I&#8221; isn&#8217;t a person, it&#8217;s the discourse. Are we imagining the sentence as a person talking, or are we just substituting &#8220;this sentence&#8221; for &#8220;I&#8221; when we read it? Reading academic papers, you&#8217;ll see stuff like &#8220;This paper will attempt to explain the difference between Etruscan and Roman bathing practices,&#8221; and you won&#8217;t have any trouble figuring out that &#8220;this paper&#8221; isn&#8217;t attempting to do anything itself &#8211; the author of &#8220;this paper&#8221; is attempting to avoid the first-person pronoun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://introvert.net/blog/2009/05/17/metamagical-themas-self-referential-sentences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

