Comments on: Invoking the name of the Lord, a quantitative history http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:52:19 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Sarah http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64397 Sarah Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:43:05 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64397 It seems to me the easiest way to figure out the usage of the Lord's name is to simply tag every single occurrence (of "Jesus Christ," "Jesus," and "Christ" in the entire collection) and then code them: full/first/last and refer/invoke/invoke&close. If you wanted to get fancy you could also code for specific formulations (such as Pres. Hinckley's "in Jesus' name, amen") to see if it's really associated with a particular person or time period (or not.) Since every talk will already have both a speaker and a date attached to it, it shouldn't be hard to write a program that will keep track of all those variables and give coders an easy-to-use interface. You could even do distributed coding, if you wanted: each person could do a few dozen talks, and every talk is coded by two different people, and tada, you had your database. And you wouldn't have any problems with "I only looked at the last line" and "I only looked for just this phrasing," since the hard part (finding every Jesus) will be done for you. I mean, if you're really interested in a definitive answer. ^_^ It seems to me the easiest way to figure out the usage of the Lord’s name is to simply tag every single occurrence (of “Jesus Christ,” “Jesus,” and “Christ” in the entire collection) and then code them: full/first/last and refer/invoke/invoke&close. If you wanted to get fancy you could also code for specific formulations (such as Pres. Hinckley’s “in Jesus’ name, amen”) to see if it’s really associated with a particular person or time period (or not.)

Since every talk will already have both a speaker and a date attached to it, it shouldn’t be hard to write a program that will keep track of all those variables and give coders an easy-to-use interface. You could even do distributed coding, if you wanted: each person could do a few dozen talks, and every talk is coded by two different people, and tada, you had your database. And you wouldn’t have any problems with “I only looked at the last line” and “I only looked for just this phrasing,” since the hard part (finding every Jesus) will be done for you.

I mean, if you’re really interested in a definitive answer. ^_^

]]> By: jose http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64398 jose Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:21:19 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64398 I love the term "orphan" to refer to a use of Jesus' name with no attached meaning. Closing a talk, testimony, or secular story over the pulpit necessitates terminating in Jesus name. Why? The same reason Tevia wears a yarmulke--Tradition! Though it would be interesting to dig deeper than that answer. Thanks for counting! I love the term “orphan” to refer to a use of Jesus’ name with no attached meaning. Closing a talk, testimony, or secular story over the pulpit necessitates terminating in Jesus name. Why? The same reason Tevia wears a yarmulke–Tradition! Though it would be interesting to dig deeper than that answer. Thanks for counting!

]]> By: LifeOnaPlate http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64399 LifeOnaPlate Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:59:25 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64399 Interesting stuff, thanks for the effort. Interesting stuff, thanks for the effort.

]]> By: John Mansfield http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64400 John Mansfield Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:08:20 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64400 A civil engineering professor in our college was showing off a sensing and data acquisition system his students put together. They mounted remote accelerometers and transmitters on the headgear of amateur boxers and filmed a round. The presentation had the camera's view of the match taking up most of the screen, and on the edges were data strips showing about ten seconds of accelerometer data centered on the present; we could see the readings up to five seconds into the future from the present moment in the replay of the boxing match. Occasionally a spike would appear on one of the boxers' data strips and move inexorable toward the moment when he would take a hit. It was quite something to experience. "He's going to be hit. There. He lowered his glove. The other guy's swinging. Here it comes. Ow. Oh no, look what's coming next; that's a huge spike!" The closing of some current General Conference talks is a bit like that. Some of the speakers don't want the closing "in the name of" phrase to be a meaningless gesture. But that's how they are going to close, since that's how it's done today. So they lead into one of J. Stapley's first three usage categories that will place them a few seconds later at those words that every Conference talk ends with. A civil engineering professor in our college was showing off a sensing and data acquisition system his students put together. They mounted remote accelerometers and transmitters on the headgear of amateur boxers and filmed a round. The presentation had the camera’s view of the match taking up most of the screen, and on the edges were data strips showing about ten seconds of accelerometer data centered on the present; we could see the readings up to five seconds into the future from the present moment in the replay of the boxing match. Occasionally a spike would appear on one of the boxers’ data strips and move inexorable toward the moment when he would take a hit. It was quite something to experience. “He’s going to be hit. There. He lowered his glove. The other guy’s swinging. Here it comes. Ow. Oh no, look what’s coming next; that’s a huge spike!”

The closing of some current General Conference talks is a bit like that. Some of the speakers don’t want the closing “in the name of” phrase to be a meaningless gesture. But that’s how they are going to close, since that’s how it’s done today. So they lead into one of J. Stapley’s first three usage categories that will place them a few seconds later at those words that every Conference talk ends with.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64401 J. Stapley Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:17:06 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64401 I should add that if I were to do the study again, I would take in account the orator and see if there were trends within certain individuals (which I am certain there is) and see how that contributed. I should add that if I were to do the study again, I would take in account the orator and see if there were trends within certain individuals (which I am certain there is) and see how that contributed.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64402 J. Stapley Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:58:29 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64402 Ron Watt's article is available <a href="http://history.utah.gov/history_programs/utah_historic_quarterly/documents/Spring2007.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It is a PDF and about ~5 MB. "The Beginnings of The Journal of Discourses: A Confrontation Between George D.Watt and Willard Richards," pg. 134. Ron Watt’s article is available here. It is a PDF and about ~5 MB. “The Beginnings of The Journal of Discourses: A Confrontation Between George D.Watt and Willard Richards,” pg. 134.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64403 J. Stapley Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:51 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64403 Jonathan Green, that is a good point and one which I have though about. This is the main reason why I don't look at pre-Utah discourses. When considering this question it is best to look at the latter 7 year data set as I looked at every sermon in the <em>JD</em> for those years. I think that any such effect is minimal precisely because of the transcription process. The process was best outlined by Ron Watt in a recent <em>Utah Historical Quarterly.</em> All the discourses were transcribed by a single indavidual for years and then a second individual. They were meticulous. It seems odd to me that they would included an invocation 25% of the time and then not for the balance. In those cases where the speaker did not invoke Jesus, there would sometimes be an Amen (e.g., “God bless you all. Amen.” JD 10:32). Lastly, the trends are pretty smooth, though to be certain, the 7 year study needs to be expanded over the full 150 years. Matt, in the seven year study I looked at all variants, though you are right that the larger study is not as robust (see qualifications in fn 1). John Mansfield, I agree. I see the use of a prayer in the discourse as being the opening of the practice. It works well and catches on and now 150 years later we use the orphan. Though it seems to me that BRM's usage was a bit more calculated than natural development. Jonathan Green, that is a good point and one which I have though about. This is the main reason why I don’t look at pre-Utah discourses. When considering this question it is best to look at the latter 7 year data set as I looked at every sermon in the JD for those years. I think that any such effect is minimal precisely because of the transcription process. The process was best outlined by Ron Watt in a recent Utah Historical Quarterly. All the discourses were transcribed by a single indavidual for years and then a second individual. They were meticulous. It seems odd to me that they would included an invocation 25% of the time and then not for the balance. In those cases where the speaker did not invoke Jesus, there would sometimes be an Amen (e.g., “God bless you all. Amen.” JD 10:32). Lastly, the trends are pretty smooth, though to be certain, the 7 year study needs to be expanded over the full 150 years.

Matt, in the seven year study I looked at all variants, though you are right that the larger study is not as robust (see qualifications in fn 1).

John Mansfield, I agree. I see the use of a prayer in the discourse as being the opening of the practice. It works well and catches on and now 150 years later we use the orphan. Though it seems to me that BRM’s usage was a bit more calculated than natural development.

]]> By: JKC http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64404 JKC Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:48:26 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64404 I had the same question as Jonathan Green (26). Do you think some usages may be underreported depending on who was transcribing? I had the same question as Jonathan Green (26). Do you think some usages may be underreported depending on who was transcribing?

]]> By: John Mansfield http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64405 John Mansfield Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:28:07 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64405 I love this, of course. Thanks for going to the trouble, Jonathan. It brings to mind a McWhorter linguistics lecture I listened to recently that described how all grammatical words start out as content words. The main example was the French negative marker <i>pas</i> which started out just meaning step, and still does when used for that purpose, but now just means not. The lecturer said that content words are used to spice up sentences: "I'm not walking." "I'm not walking a step." Then, they become habitual, lose their content meaning, and get used places that originally wouldn't have made sense: "I don't know a step what you're talking about." They end up just helping sentences flow along, becoming the new ordinary way of talking, succeeding the old ordinary way of talking. Then they get eroded down: "in'enameo'jesuchrisamen". I can see why the orphan usage would take hold. Ending a talk, coming up with the sentence after which there isn't another, letting the listeners know you have finished speaking, is one of the more difficult speaking tasks. Those who are good or think it though ahead finish with a strong final note or a pithy zinger. The rest say "That concludes my message." I love this, of course. Thanks for going to the trouble, Jonathan. It brings to mind a McWhorter linguistics lecture I listened to recently that described how all grammatical words start out as content words. The main example was the French negative marker pas which started out just meaning step, and still does when used for that purpose, but now just means not. The lecturer said that content words are used to spice up sentences: “I’m not walking.” “I’m not walking a step.” Then, they become habitual, lose their content meaning, and get used places that originally wouldn’t have made sense: “I don’t know a step what you’re talking about.” They end up just helping sentences flow along, becoming the new ordinary way of talking, succeeding the old ordinary way of talking. Then they get eroded down: “in’enameo’jesuchrisamen”.

I can see why the orphan usage would take hold. Ending a talk, coming up with the sentence after which there isn’t another, letting the listeners know you have finished speaking, is one of the more difficult speaking tasks. Those who are good or think it though ahead finish with a strong final note or a pithy zinger. The rest say “That concludes my message.”

]]> By: Matt W. http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/30/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64406 Matt W. Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:44:53 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/invoking-the-name-of-the-lord-a-quantitative-history/#comment-64406 J. This is a dumb question, so I apologize up front, but I seem to recall GBH saying something to the effect that when he was a child it was more popular to just say "In Jesus' Name, Amen" for prayer. Did this apply to talks as well? Did your study take things like that into account, or where you holding strictly to "In the name of Jesus Christ"? J. This is a dumb question, so I apologize up front, but I seem to recall GBH saying something to the effect that when he was a child it was more popular to just say “In Jesus’ Name, Amen” for prayer. Did this apply to talks as well? Did your study take things like that into account, or where you holding strictly to “In the name of Jesus Christ”?

]]>