I want someone to write a whole paper about this phenomenon:
SureJan.gif https://t.co/GAMvm1VsRv
— Vaxton P. Hartnabrig. (@GeeDee215) May 27, 2021
The words referencing the gif taking the place of the gif is something that has fascinated me! That's all. (Also trying to give you folks more material to comment on...)
Or just tell me that you think it's cool, too. Makes my head explode because it's so interesting semiotically.
ReplyDeleteThat's great. I don't know if the image itself or the words that replace the gif are funnier because I see the image in my head when I read the words and then I lol. It's interesting, it's almost as if we're moving from visual stimulation back to verbage which makes me think of how McCulloch explains how all language, informal and formal, comes back around or is constantly evolving.
ReplyDeleteOh, I talk about this a LOT (and see it talked about in nerdy linguistic circles on Tumblr which is weirdly more people than you'd think). This kind of "format switching" is actually pretty common. You'll see it like this, where an image or gif is referred to by text, but you'll also see video and sound done this way too, for instance "*how could this happen to me plays sorrowfully in the background*" or "oh my god they were roommates" in reference to the Vine. A lot of the time it's because of user interface restraints, some other times it's just time restraints/laziness. Do I want to go and look this meme up or do I want to reply quickly in a way that most people will understand?
ReplyDeleteThe reverse will also happen in non-text based conversations, too, where someone will reference a text or image based meme out loud, by saying something, not just something that flows into conversation like "Sure, Jan," either; I've even heard "and I was like, math lady dot jpeg" spoken out loud.
Right! I know it's a thing and have seen some of those discussions and some of the manifestations you are talking about, Lee. But I don't think it's interface restraints or time restraints/laziness or *just* that. I think it's a different kind of linguistic gesture--like, there's a difference between the gif and saying "image of gif." It's a simulacrum of sorts, but it's interesting to think about its function. Is it "you are so much an insider that you know this gif by it's fake label?" or is it that and something more?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, too, because you don't need to KNOW the gif to get the gif, but you DO need to know the "Sure, Jan" gif to get the "Surejan.gif" label.
And--to get REALLY nerdy--the Marcia in that gif isn't even the original Marcia. It's from the 1990s Brady Bunch movie, itself a kind of simulacrum of the original sitcom.
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness, this is kind of like the opposite of the concept I posted about in my About Me post about a picture meaning a thousand words. In this case, certain words bring to mind an image that bring with it ideas and emotions. I wonder if like Julie is implying, the way we have moved from using visual images to verbal descriptions of images reminds me of the way we started distinguishing formal from informal over time.
ReplyDelete