Toward a Systems Theory of Wordplay (2 of 2)

Splitting the atom/apt pun.

Last time out, we covered the alphabetic forms of wordplay, as well as I could in the time available. This time out, it’s phonetic and semantic forms’ turn.

The phonetic type of wordplay includes homophones (same sound, different letters) as well as heteronyms (same letters, different sound) and rhymes (same end sound or sounds, with end letters either different or the same). Other poetic devices like alliteration, assonance, and consonance are likewise part of the same area as rhyme—they’re all about similarities in pronunciation, rhyme at the end of words, alliteration at their beginning, assonance and consonance in the middle.

There are also games of rhythm to be played. Nineties kids who grew up with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme song, with the strong, repeated “DA-da DA-da DA-da DA-da” beat in its chorus, have enjoyed finding other phrases that work with the same beat. (Image from xkcd.)

A word's standard pronunciation can be represented as a series of signs, using IPA notation or other systems. Because of this, almost any alphabetic wordplay can become phonetic wordplay and vice versa. People talk about eye rhymes as opposed to real rhymes, and it's possible to imagine ear anagrams and ear palindromes as opposed to the usual types, which manipulate sounds instead of letters.

The semantic type is the subtlest and most constrained. Sometimes you can’t even tell when it’s being used; other times, it’s very obvious. All semantic wordplay does is play on words’ multiple meanings, without changing or using any quirks in their spelling or pronunciation. But when you consider how many words have multiple meanings, that turns out to be plenty.

Q: What did the mayonnaise say when the girl opened the refrigerator?

A: Close the door, I’m dressing!

Semantic wordplay doesn’t have as many standard subdivisions, although here too, it’s possible to imagine some. You can classify it by parts of speech, for example, and whether one part of speech changes to another. The more conventional use of “I’m dressing” above uses “dressing” as a verb, but the punnier usage has “dressing” as a noun. This kind of distinction is mostly an academic one, but…[points at title of The Journal of Wordplay]

One subdivision of semantic wordplay that does get a lot of attention, though, is the double entendre, in which one of the meanings is sexual or otherwise eyebrow-raising, and the other is what we might call “fit for polite society.”

This is a rudimentary system; it needs a lot of refinements. There are lots of categories I’ve skipped over, such as polylingual play and word lipograms, other types that may not even have good names yet, and ontological debates about where certain types should be classified.

For instance, I struggle a bit with where to put plays on capitalization, spacing, punctuation, or some combination of those three. One notable reinterpretation (with a little anti-tax sentiment) is “The IRS => Theirs.” Should we group these close to the heteronyms, since the letters basically don’t change but the pronunciations do? Or are they better treated like anagrams, since there is some rearrangement afoot? Leaning a bit closer to the heteronymic zone are capitalization plays like “Polish sausage” (delicious) versus “polish sausage” (inadvisable, and possibly also a double entendre).

In some cases, classification doesn’t matter much. Sitcom dialogue, for instance, makes no distinction between puns using homophones and puns on multiple meanings. It all sounds the same, and most people aren’t reading the subtitles.

Still, all things considered, this taxonomy is a good start…and I and other Journal contributors are in a good place to take the next steps.