http://www.cocomment.com/comments/sschwister Copyright 2007 coComment.com 2009-11-23T05:36:54.797+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=sschwister&conv=2407300&comment_id=57477755 Scott Schwister Someone, somewhere, somewhen, mentioned our old friend DOL. You could almost call this series, and the discussion it generates, Daily Oral Linking. 2009-02-12T03:38:23.149+01:00 2009-02-12T03:38:23.149+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=sschwister&conv=2358109&comment_id=53945984 Scott Schwister Yes, in that the link modifies the noun. But not in the familiar sense, where the modifier's own meaning is apparent in the sentence's context. In these three sentences, the modifiers look exactly the same; it's not until the reader interacts with the text by clicking on or rolling over the link that the modification starts to show its shy/sneaky little face. The modification is buried down a level (or more), and its meaning remains dormant until or unless the reader catalyzes a reaction by acting on the hyperlink. Because the adjectival function is once-removed, there's no guarantee that the reader will click, or that the reading will go beyond the sentence's "original" or "neutral" unmodified meaning---whatever that means. In the absence of the clarity provided by the click (the big adjectival reveal!), the reader will plug in whatever connotation of "parade" comes naturally, I suppose. Which raises what was probably your question in the first place: If a word is hyperlinked but no one clicks it, was its meaning really changed? Sweet puzzle. 2009-01-27T18:34:56.338+01:00 2009-01-27T18:34:56.338+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=sschwister&conv=657518&comment_id=12845623 Scott Schwister Scott Schwister, Hamline University Graduate School of Education, Saint Paul MN 2007-04-26T16:50:54.840+02:00 2007-04-26T16:50:54.840+02:00