{"id":9750,"date":"2022-05-09T08:24:05","date_gmt":"2022-05-09T12:24:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/?p=9750"},"modified":"2022-05-09T08:24:05","modified_gmt":"2022-05-09T12:24:05","slug":"talking-funny","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/?p=9750","title":{"rendered":"Talking Funny"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Language Lounge is a monthly column for word-lovers, and writers seem automatic members of that tribe.  I access the column through Visual Thesaurus<\/a>, which is a graphical thesaurus that creates a network of word similarities, rather than a list, and helps in finding that word that\u2019s ever-so-slightly out of reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The columnist, Orin Hargraves, this month talks about discourse markers (a new one on me), which help writers create and readers follow the flow of a narrative. As he describes them, \u201cthey\u2019re linguistic signposts to indicate the direction they are taking or to clue up their audience about how something should be taken.\u201d Perhaps the most obvious example is a negative one. How many times in the truncated communication environment of social media has one of your comments been completely misconstrued? Jokes and sarcasm, especially, are easily misunderstood. At least my jokes are. Why I insert a {ha!} at the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examples of discourse markers he provides include \u201cof course,\u201d which indicate the writer (or speaker) knows the audience probably already understands the next bit. Of course you do. Writers (or speakers) can signal that what\u2019s coming is an opinion with a discourse marker like \u201cIn my mind,\u201d or \u201cI think.\u201d I knew someone who liberally used phrases like \u201cTo be honest,\u201d or \u201cCandidly.\u201d It took me a while to catch onto the fact that whatever followed was likely an untruth. So, in a perverse way, his usage was actually quite helpful. Similarly, \u201cWith all due respect\u201d usually signals an impending insult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, Hargreaves focused on the word \u201cfunny,\u201d as in \u201cFunny you should say that,\u201d or \u201cfunnily enough,\u201d when what follows is unlikely to be funny (ha-ha) at all. Nor is it \u201codd\u201d or \u201cpeculiar,\u201d which funny, by extension, sometimes means. What this discourse marker seems to signal is, \u201cI\u2019m about to say something that doesn\u2019t exactly follow what you just said, but is somehow related to it.\u201d Like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joe: \u201cI really hate broccoli.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jane: \u201cFunny you should mention it. I feel the same about peas.\u201d Nothing to do with broccoli at all, but related to the larger category, cringy foods.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hargraves says people use a great many \u201cfunny\u201d signals:<\/p>\n\n\n\n