My Digital Project

My aim in this digital project is to evaluate the data, and use it to substantiate a claim that declares that language or rather the diversity of language (in Lebanon particularly) is what allows for there to also be a shaping of identities. I will be looking at the ways transnational theory and Lebanon’s history of colonial powers and mandate systems have affected the different kinds of educational systems that have been laid out for the country, and the ways that has allowed people of a certain economic or social class to form identities that coincide with the languages they use. This, I hope, will be evident by tracing the books the interviewees read, mostly during School Time (ST), and forming connections with what languages the books were in, and what year the interviewee graduated.

Using a Palladio table, I was able to organize the data with specific subjects I had chose. Such as: Year of graduation, Free Time (FT) or School Time (ST), the School the interviewee went to, and the title of the work of literature they read (in the language they read them in):

The information is organized in a timeline from the earliest year of graduation, and incrementally moves towards the latest year of graduation. It is also important to note that these graduation dates are restricted to graduating from High School. From 1957 till 2005, I would say there is quite a diverse array in the languages used (also mostly during ST). It is mostly French, but there is also Arabic, and some English. I would also argue, that if one takes out the FT option, and only considers the ST option, there would be less English novels or works of literature to consider.

As the list progresses, one can see how more and more English is integrated into school curriculum. Above, (Graduation year 2006 till 2014) almost most, if not all of the books read during school time are in English or include Classic English works of literature.

The same can be said for years 2015, and 2016.

Deanna Ferree Womack, in her article: “Lubnani, Libanais, Lebanese: Missionary Education, Language Policy and Identity Formation in Modern Lebanon” notes in her discussion about the language policy in the late Syrian Protestant College, that “the earlier classes of the College were instructed through the medium of Arabic, but more recently English has become the language of the Institution in all Departments, the first class taught through the medium of this language in the College Department, having graduated in 1880” (9).

I would like to point out that I am not interested in advocating for language policy reform, or that “we” as a country have become too “westernized” – whatever that term may mean. I am simply observing the data, and making a statement substantiated with historical evidence – so that I can contextualize the data that we have gathered. I am not interested in saying whether this is a good or bad thing, because an argument like that would quite frankly be irrelevant to a much wider claim about globalization or western colonialism. And even when talking about these issues, it is important not to take away the agency of those that have been colonized i.e. us.

The more I looked at the data, I saw connections between the highschools that the interviewees graduated from, and the language of the books they read in school: 

Of course, this would seemingly come as a simple rather straight-forward observation, but I’m interested in how language and identities are formed in light of something like this.

Womack also writes, “[t]he majority of students and their families, however, demanded instruction in English and French because of the wider economic and intellectual horizons these languages could provide. Fluency in a second language offered a spiritual or cultural connection to the West, but students also valued Arabic” (17).

This isn’t to say that the languages of colonial powers like French and English aren’t useful, or that they shouldn’t be useful – it’s that they are. And my question is, could we change that? Do we want to change that? What does it say about the way the world works? About transnationalism? And what does it do to the ‘authenticity’ of our identities, if there is such a thing?

Refining my Topic – On Language

Taking a precursory look at the data our class has collected in the fall of 2016, I have begun to find connections in the ways the data has been organized.

But, before I begin to discuss the digital project, I’ll first begin by speaking a little bit about how we, as a group, each came to decide on a particular topic. After meeting with my group members, and after several discussions on Whatsapp – we agreed on a common theme: language. The ways in which each of our projects diverge are based on our personal interests and interpretations of the acquired data. Zeina will specifically be talking about the ways canonicity and language intersect, Theresa will be talking about the lack of intersectionality between the curriculum at school and what it means to be Arab. As for myself, I will be looking at the ways transnational theory and Lebanon’s history of colonial powers and mandate systems have affected the different kinds of educational systems we have laid out for the country – or more broadly, the “Arab World”. Although, our second blog posts will mostly be dedicated to looking at the ways we could start to analyze the data.

The data is mostly comprised of a set of titles of works of literature by their respective authors, the interviewees and the interviewers are both anonymous. The information also includes what date the work of literature (play, novel, poetry, etc.) was first published, when the interviewee had time to read the book (whether it was assigned during school time, or on their free time; not as part of the school curriculum), what year the interviewee graduated, which school they went to in Lebanon (or abroad, but it seems as though the majority of school are situated in the Middle Eastern region), how they felt when or after they finished reading the book, and other categories of information.

Below is a picture displaying partially collected data:

The more I looked through the material, the more I came to notice a correlation between the year of graduation and the language of the literature the anonymous interviewees read. The earlier the graduation year, the less likely it would be that the literature would be written (or read) in English. Of course I realize there are many factors I still haven’t taken into consideration, like where they went to school, what language they spoke in school, what language they spoke at home – and I think this would be interesting data to record, because if I’m thinking about Lebanon particularly, it’s immensely fraught with variant forms of linguistic resources. I’m thinking of myself particularly, but I know that the linguistic landscape many of us who grow up here tread is rich and abounding in the diversity and differentiation of particular languages. Those that come to mind are English, Arabic, and French. Of course, there’s Armenian as well, Sinhala or Tamil, Amharic, and others. Even those of us who attended “American” schools growing up were always surrounded with Arabic or French or variants of both.

The theory I am working toward, and which will later come more into fruition in the third and final blog post of this digital project, is that schools that incorporated non-English books into their curriculum were more ubiquitous before the turn of the 21st century, or that there was less of a focus on English as a main and essential language. Of course, I am only looking at one aspect of this “phenomenon” if that is what I will come to call it. There are transnational and transhistorical factors that I am overlooking, but which I do have in mind as well. We cannot take away colonialism or imperialism from the history of the “Arab World,” whatever the Arab world may be. We cannot make it invisible even now. Nor is it my aim to entertain this data without taking into consideration the crazy change western imperialism has taken on in the wake of technology and surveillance.

Reflecting back on the data, one can see how the interviewees that graduated at an earlier date more often read works in either Arabic or French:

I am mostly concerned about readings done during school time – not free time, one may find that if the interviewee is bilingual or multilingual, they could read works of Arabic, French, or Armenian in their free time (FT).

Although my claim that if one had graduated earlier doesn’t necessitate that they would read works in Arabic, French, or another language (for example, the two interviewees above the highlighted row have both read works in Arabic during school time) – I argue that it is more likely. Of course, I haven’t considered the participant’s memory either. It is very likely that one could have read literary works in Arabic or French, and it didn’t “stick” with them, or they don’t remember.

Still there are quite a few examples that substantiate my argument:

Like interviewee GA, and NS:

Or, interviewee AA, HH, WS, and IA:

I’d like to explore this more using Palladio or Carto – which outline certain types of maps and resources that can help me develop this theory even more.

On Collaborative Work

Being an English Literature major, I don’t think you can survive your three years without having done collaborative work. That’s why I am pretty comfortable doing it. I am confident that my group and I will do well, and finish this digital project with flying colors. I have completed projects that included collaboration before in different classes, and also because I am currently co-authoring a paper with a senior associate in the English department that will hopefully be submitted for review this December.

I am confident in the ability of my peers, I know their skill sets very well because I’ve known both of them for quite a while. I know Zeina is a hard worker and grasps concepts and makes connections in ways that add to the quality of the project. Theresa knows books, and knows people very well, so that will be an interesting quality to bring to the table, I believe. We all share similar abilities: we can articulate our thoughts well, we do analysis and close data interpretation well, and we all have invested interest in the project.

I think we will be dividing the work equally and fairly – placing deadlines will also be good motivation for us to do the work and not just leave it till the last minute.

At this point, I think it’s too soon to say what the digital project will reveal, but I can assume that we will find something in the data that could be relatable, and something that we are able to make out into a pattern. Also, I do believe we will find strong evidence for why certain texts have had such a huge effect on people whether inside or outside the school system – I think I will read the data as mostly related to class and social status, but I could be wrong.

This project is pretty relevant, because after all I am not studying literature in a vacuum, or as an independent variable that works in an independent system – literature has intersected with culture, race, gender, class, and other status indicators. I like thinking about things intersectionally, because I do believe this is the way the world works for the most part.

I like the way we have outlined for our group to work collaboratively, because even though you do need to consult with your group, in the end the product is your own, and you can still include your own thoughts and analyses.

The most surprising thing at this early stage in the interviews are people’s enthusiasm at volunteering this specific information – a lot of people say: “ah, people in Lebanon don’t read,” but they couldn’t be more wrong. You can’t say that about any place, really. People once they share the books they have read are almost sharing the attachments they have to the books as well. I think what could be interesting to add is the nationality or class of the people we are interviewing – I think that’s something I would personally be very interested to see the results of.

After our first reflection blog post, in order to continue with our digital project we will read each others’ blog posts, and see what each person thinks. And then, we’ll go back to the data and start outlining a preliminary thesis of what we think the data could reveal.

Final Map Project

Using the data I have collected, and paralleling it with the data others have collected, I will show the way in which linguistic maps produce cultural identities in different spaces; keeping in mind that this is all within a postcolonial space (Lebanon as a whole) still affected by cultural imperialism. I would also like to add that the deductions I will be making are subjective, merely observations that I’ve  (carefully) made using my own experiences, but which are still valid on a micro-level and individualistic basis.

Taking a look at this linguistic map displaying the entirety of the data collected by peers and myself: 

it is evident that the most pervasive languages concentrated to the left of the map are English (alone), and English and Arabic (appearing simultaneously). As one moves further away from this cluster, languages not including English begin to appear more frequently, and in different variations i.e. by themselves, coupled with two or three other languages, and in scripts different than the Latin script.

If one compares my data to this collection, one can see that this is mirrored in my linguistic map as well:

Let me first say that identities are complex and intricate structures, they are not, however, ontological subjects that exist in vacuum. Our identities are formed by our socialization: The gender we are ascribed, the nationality we are given, our race, our class – interwoven in the fusion of all these different aspects of identity comes language (and education levels). Language is one hell of a complicated thing. We could talk about whether language produced thought, or whether thought produced language, but this debate has no place in what I am trying to prove. I am speaking about years later, when your identity has more or less been formed in the static way that it is – it begins to be affected by the languages you use, hear, laugh at, argue with. Language essentially becomes the foreground for all of our social interactions.

I don’t speak French. But that is only because I never grew up in an environment where French was spoken to me, I was never surrounded by it, I didn’t hear it in music or on the television. Somehow, though, upon my moving to Beirut, I began to know the meaning of words in French – I understood words in the contexts in which they appeared. Words such as: Garderie, Foyer, Soeurs, or Famille. For a native speaker, perhaps these words seem simple, or easy to recognize, but not for someone who hadn’t really been exposed to French – ever.

Spaces where French seems to be more common than Arabic or English, spaces like Badaro, or Badaro street:

where French, and it’s mixity with English and Arabic is much more ubiquitous than in places like Hamra or Forn el Shebbak, gives the onlooker a sense that the French language contributes a particular aspect of identity to those living around that area. The appearance of the French language is such a space provides information of what “kind” of people live around that area. Perhaps one can make assumptions about the class, or race, or education level. Language does more than form a linguistic identity, but it speaks of identity as a whole.

“Identity is constantly interactively constructed on a microlevel, where an indi- vidual’s identity is claimed, contested and re-constructed in interaction and in relation to the other participants” (Norris 657 as quoted by Pearson 35).

Living in an imperially influenced country with a history of colonialism, it’s easy to think that your identity has strictly been constructed by those colonial and imperial factors, i.e. mainly speaking English in an American accent, with a little bit of Arabic and French  boiled into the mix. It’s interesting to see how these linguistic maps create spaces that describe our postcolonial identity. My English is not purely American, my Arabic is not purely Lebanese, and my French is only a mix of the two. My identity is one of a fusion of languages displayed by the spaces in which I live and move in. These are maps not only of our identities, but our uniqueness and singularity in a world that constantly categorizes itself into neat little boxes of “yeas and nays.”

 

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi39P6kzcjMAhUBWBoKHTRoDJAQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatalogue.pearsoned.co.uk%2Fassets%2Fhip%2Fgb%2Fuploads%2FM02_HALL5068_02_SE_C02.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHCLdB1ocNrabWyfDxgUhibgMsSag&sig2=FgMXo6javL2Eoo_82SBE2g

Data Reflection

In thinking about data collection, I find it comes more naturally to me to think about all the things that are ‘wrong’ with my own data collection, or to put it more effectively: the limitations of data collection.

My own limitations included my inability to move out of the city too much. I was restricted to the languages in my area, and therefore in some sense, the quality of my data collection in terms of language expression- it did not vary as much as it could have. I feel being in a limited space forces you into trying to be creative, but at the same time keeps you in the redundancy of the sameness of the language. I will explain further.

The bulk of my data collection is shown below in red versus the rest of the data collection in dark blue:

I could only move around the Hamra/Badaro area, sometimes venturing off into nearby and different places. One can see in the image below that most of my data collection was centered on Arabic, English, Arabic-English, and English-French.

I had a harder time finding – or rather, recognizing – language comprised of both Arabic and French simultaneously, or French on its own. Not to mention that it was even more rare to find language that wasn’t Arabic, French, or English. Of course it could be argued that different languages like Armenian, Ethiopian, Sinhalese, Tamil, or any other foreign languages would be located within concentrated and restricted areas – they wouldn’t be as ubiquitous as the three I’ve mentioned above.

Most of the difficulty I faced taking these pictures, was in the physical photographing that had to be done. I was often stared at questioningly, people wondering what I was doing taking pictures and then documenting them. A few times I was asked why I was taking pictures of this or that restaurant – people didn’t like the idea that things that were out in the open, were in some sense, being “documented.” This isn’t surprising considering the politics that go around areas like Beirut. It almost always feels like we’re all being watched.

 

Wildcard

Drawing a parallel between Mark Twain’s use of ‘eye dialect’ in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and the way in which eye dialect is used in texting language.

Perhaps the most notable feature of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is his use of eye dialect in order to portray Southern Black language. Jim’s, and very often Huck’s, dialects are formed by the shortening, or entire rewriting of English words. For example: “ben (been), b’fo'(first syllable) [….] ag’in, hain’ (haven’t), alwuz, and kin (can)“(Tidwell 174). There are only small variations from their spelling in standard English to represent “low colloquial, Southern American, or [Black]” (Tidwell 174). 

Generally, Huck spoke a colloquial and standardized version of English, but oftentimes he would switch to a Southern, slang dialect, indicated by words such as “duz, wisht (wished), ole (old), and doan (don’t)” (Tania Alves “Huck’s Vernacular through The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn“).

In some sense, I am reminded of meme culture, and the way in which it has been integrated into texting language. Not at all in the way of condescension, or paralleling Black language with the humor of text language, but only to show the way in which eye dialect plays a role in the way we communicate. Words like pls, dis, den, patarck (character from Spongebob the cartoon TV show), tenks (thanks), wun (one) or tink’d (thought). What is interesting about these words is that you read them in the ways they have been written, to convey a certain sense of the humor that memes in media culture allow for language to have. More specifically, making “bad writing”standardized isn’t just being perceived as something “intelligently funny,” but it allows for language in text form to give-off a tonality of non-seriousness, or lightheartedness:

This is a part of a Whatsapp conversation I had with a friend, it has become so instinctive to talk (read:text) in this way, I’m not sure exactly what is meant by this kind of variation of a standardized English, but it is interesting to see the way in which different variations become standards within our own uses of language.

This sort of language comes from popular memes such as this one:

This is all perhaps to show that there really is no “standard” english.There are different englishes that groups and communities have produced not only for the purpose of communication, but to describe an identity integrated in the language used.

Sources:

• Alves, Tania: https://livingwithlanguage.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/huck%E2%80%99s-vernacular-throughout-the-adventures-of-huckleberry-finn/
• “Patarck” image: https://ifunny.co/tags/patark
• Tidwell, James N.: http://www.jstor.org/stable/486791?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

OED

Part 1: Neologisms

It seems like all the new words that have incrementally been added into the dictionary since 2001 have slowly started to revolve more around the internet and mainstream media culture; or “memes,” i.e. something that becomes somewhat of a trend online, by imitation and repetition. Usually humorous.

Generally, that is the gist of where the majority of the words come from, however, taking a closer look we see that words added in a particular year are telling of what the world “looked like” at a specific point in time. For example , in 2004, the word waterboard (a torture technique used in order to recreate the feeling of drowning over and over again) was added into the dictionary, only a year after the Bush administration had waged America’s war on terror.

There are other unusual terms, such as ‘whoonga’ (of African slang) or ‘zama zama’ which is a term borrowed from Zulu, and means “a person who works illegally in abandoned mine-shafts in order to retrieve metals, minerals, etc.” (OED). This is interesting because the OED doesn’t necessarily limit the English language to just America or Europe. In some sense, it considers the possibility of several different englishes, but not extensively. Still, a vast majority of these newly added words have to do with western internet culture such as the ‘happy slap,’ which is also a sort of meme. Or the word ‘fap’ for that matter which is patriarchal, in some comic relief sense.

Part 2: Categories

The region I had chosen was the Caribbean, Jamaica specifically. It is interesting to note that a lot of the words registered and used most frequently are those having to do with plants i.e. bushes, shrubs, or the “Jamaican” mistletoe – these were used in the context of cooking etc. Other words included also had to do with religion or the materials used in religious ceremonies.

Oftentimes, words such as Bandarang (1935 – date in which word was entered into the dictionary) or Bredda (1969) were reflective of the Caribbean pronunciation. For example the latter word, Bredda, was merely slang for the word brother. What is interesting to note is that the origin for some of these words are Portuguese or Haitian – not particularly imperialist in descent.

Part 3: Timelines

This is the timeline expressive of gradual rise and then sudden fall of the words admitted into the OED from Jamaica.

We can see that somewhere in the middle of the 1600s – during the British colonization – till 1962, when Jamaica became independent, there was a gradual increase in the words admitted into the dictionary.

During the rise of use of these words, new English words (sampled below) are pretty simple English European words – in comparison to what came after.

After the end of the British colonization, the language began to meld into English, creating new words, and thus new concepts. Again, contributing to the idea that there is no one universal english. Perhaps, this is in some sense retaliation against British colonization in which English isn’t merely the oppressor’s language anymore, but somewhat reintegrated into the Jamaican society to reestablish independence and identity that is still Jamaican.

Some of these new “melded” sample words are seen below:

Also if we delved deeper into the different categories these words happened to fall under, we would see a bizarre pattern. If one clicked on the category of “Drugs,” it would make odd sense to see the rise in the usage of these terms.

So, I leave you with this information, and the explanations you may come to find on your own.

 

 

Lexicography

This blog post will explore a certain kind of “religiosity” present in both Websters and Johnson’s dictionary, and the ways in which it is distinctively incorporated into their providing dictionaries that are cohesive and relevant. Neither of them claim to want to produce a dictionary that encompasses words in their objective, absolute meanings, however, there is a hankering, particularly Websters’, to “one-up” Johnson – who had come before him – by producing something more wide-ranging. I believe both Websters and Johnson act as ‘gatekeepers,’ but the execution is completely different. And this isn’t to say that they are both ruled by different ideologies that are so explicitly alluded to in the production of these two different dictionaries, only that the words collected do say something about the way they both see the world. The aim is to be thorough and extensive, but not universal. Johnson’s opening line to the preface of the dictionary is this: “It is the fate of those who toil at the lower employments of life, to be rather driven by the fear of evil, than attracted by the prospect of good; to be exposed to censure, without hope of praise; to be disgraced by miscarriage, or punished for neglect, where success would have been without applause, and diligence without reward.” He continues, saying:

Among these unhappy mortals is the writer of dictionaries; whom mankind have considered, not as the pupil, but the slave of science, the pionier of literature, doomed only to remove rubbish and clear obstructions from the paths of Learning and Genius, who press forward to conquest and glory, without bestowing a smile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progress.

I don’t believe Johnson’s aim is to further the standardization of language as part of an elitism that Websters gestures at (“In many cases, the nature of our governments, and of our civil institutions, requires an appropriate language in the definition of words, even when the words express the same thing, as in England…. the Rev. Dr. Goodrich of Durham, one of the trustees of Yale College, suggested to me, the propriety and expediency of my compiling a dictionary, which should complete a system for the instruction of the citizens of this country in the language.”). My theory is that Johnson, unlike Websters, isn’t too concerned about looking back at the origins of words (perhaps what origin meant to Websters was words as they appeared in the bible?), but is obsessed with the way in which these words produce negativity. Particularly where blame is concerned.

1. Adultery:
   For Johnson: simply, “the act of violating the bed of a married person.”For Websters: 1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring. By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both:such intercourse of a married man, with an unmarried woman, is fornication in both, and adultery of the man, within the meaning of the law respecting divorce; but not a felonious adultery in either, or the crime of adultery at common law, or by statute. This latter offense is, in England, proceeded with only in the ecclesiastical courts.

   2. In a scriptural sense, all manner of lewdness or unchastity, as in the seventh commandment.

   3. In scripture, idolatry, or apostasy from the true God. Jeremiah 3:8.

   4. In old laws, the fine and penalty imposed for the offense of adultery

   5. In ecclesiastical affairs, the intrusion of a person into a bishopric, during the life of the bishop.

   6. Among ancient naturalists, the grafting of trees was called adultery being considered as an unnatural union.

2. Nature:
   When one searches for the word ‘nature’ in Johnson’s dictionary, the first suggestion that pops up is in fact ‘illnature.’ And it’s interesting to think about why there is no direct line to the definition of nature, but it is so convenient for the person searching for the definition of nature to first come across illnature. Johnson defines nature as “[a]n imaginary being supposed to preside over the material and animal world,”or “[t]he native state or properties of any thing, by which it is discriminated from others,” or “[t]he constitution of an animated body,” “the regular course of things” etc. Johnson’s definition of nature has nothing to do with God or religiousness. In his definitions he does use the Bible as sources for where the word does appear, but he isn’t particularly concerned with mentioning God.

   Websters on the other hand, first and foremost, defines nature as this: “[i]n a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in natureAnd look through nature up to natures God.”

3. Liberty:
   Websters defines ‘liberty’ as “Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions,” or “Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.”
   Websters is extremely concerned with things being chaotic or out of order as seen above. He is more concerned with wrong-doing than most of anything else.
   Johnson on the other hand defines liberty as freedom from slavery: “[f]reedom, as opposed to slavery.”And freedom as privilege, or “free from restraint.” One can see the way in which Johnson tries to annul blame or hurt, with a reminder that there are always people suffering by the hands of someone privileged.

 

Semantic Change

1. Plethora:

Contemporary occurrence of word: “A #plethora of talent to choose from for #NBAcallup: Gomes, Upshaw, Andre Ingram, Josh Magette, Vander, Bari…”

Source: https://twitter.com/gonzosports1/status/706576754295484417

OED definition (in the context of the word’s occurrence above): “Originally in pejorative sense: an excessive supply, an overabundance; an undesirably large quantity. Subsequently, and more usually, in neutral or favourable sense: a very large amount, quantity, or variety.”

The earliest usage of the word in this sense was in 1835 – F. Marryat Olla Podrida xvii, in Metropolitan Mag.  says: “We are..suffering under a plethora of capital.”

However, its earlier appearance was in a medical context. The term itself was first used to describe irregular, biological excess, mostly  negative connotations or associated with unhealthiness. In 1425, “Guy de Chauliac Grande Chirurgie (N.Y. Acad. Med.) If þer were plectorie [?c1425 Paris if he be plectorik, i. fulle; L. si plectoria adesset], he myȝt loueably opne þe veyne.” We can see the way in which it is used in a similar way to the way one would use anemic or diabetic (plethoric). We can understand the way in which the meaning has transformed into simply meaning abundance and excess, but perhaps in a less negative sense. Plethora often implies abundance with goodness or wellness, or as in the contemporary occurrence above, excellence.

2. Girl:

Modern occurrence: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23girl&src=typd – Picture of a particularly feminine person, with long hair and makeup – the photo is captured with: #girltrends.

OED definition: Dating back to the word’s earliest occurrence, the world girl meant “a child of either sex; a young person.” The example given was Thomas Becket: in C. Horstmann Early S.-Eng. Legendary (1887) 108 (MED),   Þe Amirales douȝter was In þe strete þare-oute, And suyþe gret prece of gurles and Men comen hire al-a-boute.

The definition later developed into describing a person with “purely female” parts. Often encompassing a person of any age (mentioned in OED). It’s funny how other definitions include: prostitute, a female servant, or a sweetheart, a girlfriend, or a wife – later used insultingly to describe an “effeminate man,”or “homosexual man.” It’s ridiculous to think about the change such a simple word has gone through. From essentially being something that was used to describe children not including gender, to something so gendered and biased.

3. literally

Modern occurrence: Vote or Die. #Literally. This is a twitter post by a person named YoungWavy Source: https://twitter.com/MIABabyFace/status/706286105868554241

(Perhaps this is alluding to the up-coming U.S. presidential elections – who knows.)

OED definition: In a literal, exact, or actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc. First occurrence of this word was in 1429: Mirour Mans Saluacioune (1986) l. 553   Litteraly haf ȝe herde this dreme and what it ment.

Although ironically, in that particular sentence, it would seem as though “litteraly” were meant metaphorically. This word hasn’t gone through much change. Since then it has meant something non-proverbial or non-metaphorical.

Remediation.

My own transcription of John Trevisa’s Polychronicon:

AlBildefeste and for hib ledere I bansned him nought heslolbg him also. And perfor seppe pat Cayin hib synne iBab The pumsted seuer fold pat iN in peseurpe generation. For adam causeth iBab (ihav) pe sener(r)pe from adam in point lyne. Laincth him synne iBab the punshed senene and seventy fold. For senene and seventy Bilderen patroine of him thesedede in Roch shypo flood.Open for so many generation there By thene lameth and

If anyone has seen John Trevisa’s “original” translation of Polychronicon, it becomes fairly obvious to them that it is definitely not what is written above. Even when I say “original,” I am actually referring to a digitized image of the parchment of animal skin, used as what would commonly be paper in today’s world, on the internet. The change that has occurred in this small remediation: animal skin to digital photo – changing the parchment into a form which then can be spread and distributed; allows for both material and immaterial properties of this “first” medium to be lost to us. Properties such as the smell of animal skin, the texture, and perhaps even the visual, which has probably changed to some extent too.

When I began to transcribe this text into written form (using pen and paper) – and then later into a digitized typed format – I did have to put a lot of effort and thought into making interpretive decisions. For example, distinguishing Trevisa’s ‘M’s from his ‘N’s from his ‘I’s from his ‘U’s. In fact it is very common, unless one knows the language well, for the distinction of these letters to be lost to us. However, I found even more difficulty in transcribing other characters and scribal abbreviations, such as  (p^t), which I later discovered means ‘that,’ or even the letter ‘p’ with a little tilde (~) on its top which could mean pre, pro, per, etc. Also words that included the letter ‘i’ with a long tilde could be an abbreviation for im or in.

These small abbreviations or characters were parts of the language that not only didn’t make sense to me in my transcription of them, but were characters that I had to change or overlook. In handwritten form, keeping the archaic spelling was something that was more likely to happen. However, once I began to type the text, I realized I was trying to shove the “original” form of the text into another medium it was simply never meant to exist in. The cognitive process behind the physical process of transcription was riding on my interpretive compromising of the text itself. I was trying to normalize it, and in doing so I was changing it – I was trying to expand it, or perhaps adapt it and turn it into something more modern. It did feel as though I were compromising the words; I did feel that there was a lot of meaning I was losing, but quite a bit that I was gaining – not in meaning, but in understanding that the written word is constantly in flux. Text does change across mediums. The radical change of the materiality of texts affects the way they are reproduced, redistributed, and reinterpreted – and therefore, our written words, as well as ourselves, are the element of change itself. We invoke it, and we are made different by it.