idiolectic

Since the binding of signifier to signified is non-essential — such that a cigar may just be a cigar — and is often even idiolectic and idiosyncratic — such that what is significant to the advocate, A, may be significant only to them — the conventionality of semantic associations must be taken as a standard of approximate objectivity in order to distinguish the uncoupling of conventionally-accepted pairings (as, say, where the advocate is highlighting a well-established symbolism of anti-Semitism) from the rejection of idiosyncratically-asserted couplings (as, say, where the advocate is reading a pepper mill as a phallic symbol); the former constitutes insignification while the latter is simply a denial of significance.

Arguing With Geeks 8 Hal Duncan 2009

Since the binding of signifier to signified is non-essential — such that a cigar may just be a cigar — and is often even idiolectic and idiosyncratic — such that what is significant to the advocate, A, may be significant only to them — the conventionality of semantic associations must be taken as a standard of approximate objectivity in order to distinguish the uncoupling of conventionally-accepted pairings (as, say, where the advocate is highlighting a well-established symbolism of anti-Semitism) from the rejection of idiosyncratically-asserted couplings (as, say, where the advocate is reading a pepper mill as a phallic symbol); the former constitutes insignification while the latter is simply a denial of significance.

Archive 2009-03-01 Hal Duncan 2009

“Unreasonable” is, of course informally defined and therefore arguable: as with the Argument by Insignification, conventionality may offer a standard of approximate objectivity by which significance can be deemed idiolectic and idiosyncratic, an eccentric invention, or validated as a more perceptive reading; ISMs will often lead to Import Artifices, but the subcultural semantic associations which lead to them may also legitimise significances within one community that another would consider spurious; accusations of Import Artifices should therefore be interrogated for evidence of a Subtextual Sensitivity Differential. posted by Hal Duncan | 1: 12 PM

Archive 2009-03-01 Hal Duncan 2009

“Unreasonable” is, of course informally defined and therefore arguable: as with the Argument by Insignification, conventionality may offer a standard of approximate objectivity by which significance can be deemed idiolectic and idiosyncratic, an eccentric invention, or validated as a more perceptive reading; ISMs will often lead to Import Artifices, but the subcultural semantic associations which lead to them may also legitimise significances within one community that another would consider spurious; accusations of Import Artifices should therefore be interrogated for evidence of a Subtextual Sensitivity Differential. posted by Hal Duncan | 1: 12 PM

Arguing With Geeks 11 Hal Duncan 2009

The problem of punching ‘I’m loving it’ into a corpus is, of course, that the phrase has become insitutionalised and therefore has skewed the frequency data (a good example of how language change is effected through idiomatic – even idiolectic – usage – analogous to way that evolutionary change is triggered by genetic mutations).

C is for Corpus « An A-Z of ELT 2010