Talk:Signifyin'/Archive 1

Example request
HELLO INDIVIDUALS USING WIKIPEDIA AND MANIPULATING ITS CONTENTS! I have read this article several times over the past three years, and still have absolutely no idea what signifying means. Can someone explain this article to me? 128.192.233.128 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

can we get an example in here? This article is, alas, incomprehensible to me as it is right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgentSteel (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would the new use of the word "doe" (used in place of "though") be an example? 67.149.196.50 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this article at ALL, and I have a degree in English, with a focus on history of the language. 64.132.218.4 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Count me in. I have read this article and I still don't know what signifying is, which is very irritating. I have an English degree and can negotiate language very well. I echo the call for a few well-chosen, telling, and accessible examples, with brief glosses to point out where the signfying occurs. I'm sure they would help considerably.


 * Here are "explanations" I didn't understand:


 * ...the gap between the denotative and figurative meanings of words.... What is that gap?


 * ...signifyin' often takes the form of quoting from subcultural vernacular, while extending the meaning at the same time through a rhetorical figure. Illustration, please.


 * Signifyin(g) directs attention to the connotative, context-bound significance of words, which is accessible only to those who share the unique cultural values of a given speech community.


 * And what on earth is a trope of double-voiced repetition and reversal? Double-voiced? Huh? 174.16.35.74 (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a description from a good article I found. The concept is fuzzy so any specific example is going to lose some of the intended meaning, which is what the included quote makes clear. Mattgrommes 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the article either. The most I can gather from it is the "signifying" is a fancy word for the use of figures of speech, irony or indeed any kind of indirect or allusive discourse, i.e. any form of communication other than flat-out plain literal speech. 206.222.198.12 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Tom


 * I don't know if the example is appropriate, but jive (which includes signifying) has been parodied several times in films and TV. One of the more memorable examples is the mother from Leave it to Beaver's performance in AIRPLANE!:


 * Attndnt : Would you tell him to just relax and I'll be back as
 * soon as I can with some medicine.


 * Woman : Jus' hang loose blooood. She goonna catch up on the`
 * rebound a de medcide.


 * Jivemn2 : What it is big mamma, my mamma didn't raise no dummy, I
 * dug her rap.


 * Woman4 : Cut me som' slac' jak! Chump don wan no help, chump
 * don git no help. Jive ass dude don got no brains
 * anyhow.


 * LostCause 07:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

well ... thanks but that dialog doesn't help much - what type of signifyin(g) is that supposed to exemplify? since "the concept is fuzzy", maybe someone with some expertise could provide examples of each of the assorted aspects/types/"subgenres" of it? it would help a lot, since the article as it now stands really doesn't clarify much at all.

for example, i found a reference in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/arts/music/16ROCK-MUSIC.html?ei=5070&en=28c92b61ae0a1cf1&ex=1212552000&pagewanted=print&position=top "But there is a hidden humor in [Bo Diddley's songs], Mr. Levy said. 'They are often explicitly signifying records which involve putting over a joke on someone who doesn't understand the nuances of African-American thought and speech. It makes fun of white people without them realizing it.'"

since that's one "subgenre" of signifyin(g), some specific examples of it would be great - along with examples of other types, that is ... does it qualify as signifyin(g) when, on the Shine a Light soundtrack CD, Jagger refers to Buddy Guy as "Buddy Motherfvcker Guy" - especially given that Mr Guy uses the MF term all the time himself, quite often as an honorific? Sssoul (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article sounds very strange but this device is taught in many universites. I've added an example from Jacques Derrida and cleared up the begining. Nswc5 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As of 8th April 2010 this is one of the worst articles I have ever read, someone please add somethingHarshmustard (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2012 and this article still makes no sense. 123.2.121.197 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The (g) and slang
I've restored both Gates' spelling ("signifyin(g)", per common usage&mdash;see Google) and the slang spelling ("signifyin'"&mdash;see Urban Dictionary).

I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I believe "signifyin(g)" was Gates' own spelling, and Gates himself had originally appropriated the term from African American slang ("signifyin'"), playing it against the more traditional notions of signification discussed in semiotics and related studies. The reason for the parenthetical "g" is to leave both spellings intact and to suggest a double meaning (rather appropriately, considering): signifyin' + signifying.

66.73.198.233 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I think it is best to keep the use to Gates definition of Signifyin(g) CONSISTENTLY so as not to confuse it with classical, standard English, Sausurian terms. Everyone is very confused so let’s keep it clear and simple.Nswc5 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning?
Some explanation! The concept is left as incomprehensible as before. All we know from this "Airplane" quote is that "signifying" is done in a non-standard form of Enligh. Indeed, we don't know whether the "Airplane" quote is really "signifying" or some kind of parody thereof. Tom129.93.17.139 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * as far as i can tell it's neither signifyin(g) nor a pardoy thereof - it's just a dialog in non-standard English. Sssoul (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This concept is VERY hard to understand! I've tried to explain it better at the start and wish to clear the article up much more. Please do not delete. Nswc5 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"If no one can offer a concise, coherent definition of this term, I'm going to assume it's essentially meaningless and therefore this article will a) be deleted or b) take a far more critical attitude toward the holographic house of cards that is "African"-American academia."

I am new to this, so my apologies if this response is breaking some code of etiquette or another. Signifying is a well established rhetorical device which finds its roots in Black secular oral tradition and has been extended in academic dialogue to music and poetry. I will leave it to someone else to clarify Samuel Floyd's 1995 treatment, as I am better versed in Signifying as a stylistic trait of poetry of the Black Arts Movement. In her 1973 article "Power of the Rap," Smitherman identifies Signification as one of 5 stylistic traits of New Black Poetry, defining it as "a ritualized insult, a verbal put down, in which the speaker needles (i.e., signifies) his audience or some member of the audience either to initiate verbal "war" or to make a point hit home. Also synonymous with the Black term, Capping, effective Signification is characterized by exploitation of the unexpected and quick verbal surprises."

Gates quotes Smitherman in defining eight features of Signification: " 1. Indirection, circumlocution 2. Metaphorical-imagistic 3. Humorous, ironic 4. Rhythmic fluence and sound 5. Teachy but not preachy 6. Directed at person or persons usually present in the situational context 7. Punning, play on words 8. Introduction of the semantically or logically unexpected"

The folk tale from which the term derives emphasizes oral virtuosity over physical aggression by demonstrating that a monkey can defeat a lion through verbal misdirection. Like the Dozens, this rhetorical device provides a source of empowerment for the disadvantaged Black community as well as a method for solving in-group conflict without resorting to violence. For more on that see Thurmon Garner's investigation of the Dozens as an in-group rhetorical device, "Playing the Dozens: Folklore as Strategies for Living" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech 69(1) 1983.

Imani Perry extends signifying to "the multiple registers of hip hop," access to which "constitutes a test in familiarity with the artist and, for example, his or her sociopolitical or philosophical location." She adds that, though at the surface level of the text language "may affirm stereotypes of black men...a deeper register of the text may then challenge the assumptions, describe feeling locked into the stereotype, reinterprets it to the advantage of the artist, or make fun of the holder of the stereotype" (61). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWComan (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other treatments of Signifying occur in the following:

Floyd Jr., Samuel A. The Power of Black Music:  Interpreting Its History from Africa to the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Perry, Imani. Prophets of the Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip Hop. Durham, NC: Duke University 	Press. 2004.

Richardson, Elaine. “(Dis)inventing Discourse: Examples from Black Culture and Hiphop Rap/Discourse.”  	In Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Ed. Sinfree Makoni. Great Britain: Multilingual 	Matters Limited, 2006. pp. 196-215.

Smitherman, Geneva. “The Power of the Rap: The Black Idiom and the New Black Poetry.”  Twentieth 	Century Literature, Vol. 19 No. 4 (October, 1973). 259-274.

Just because we cannot come up with a succinct phrasing does not mean that signifying is not valid as a part of the Black literary tradition.

AWComan (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the "may need rewriting" tag
i've just added this tag because, although it's great that someone's been working on improving the article, the writing style is *very* hard to follow. in addition, there are sizeable chunks that appear to be original research, and a lot of departures from wikipedia's manual of style and layout guidelines. a day or two ago i proposed some modifications that were reverted, so i've stayed quiet to let the other editor(s) do his/her/their thing, but it seems like it's time to start smoothing out some of the problems so that it will read well and adhere to wikipedia standards. thanks Sssoul (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Few will feel this is "*very* hard to follow" compared to last week's version of this article. Look at the Discussion-It's an inherently abstruse subject. Glad tho if anyone now understand these concepts enuf to rewrite.Hilarleo (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for all the contributions. it is possible (and highly desireable!) to write clearly about abstruse subjects, and it's good to hear you're open to someone editing the article with that aim (and wikipedia's style guide) in mind. Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the article's History *your* changes were not reverted with intent but resulted from your press to make adjustments in the midst of my near-comprehensive re-write. Most curious to me is this sudden surfeit of interest. The article suffered a 7-month period of inattention by those such as yourself who are concerned with standardization. Did that article meet your "standards"? Yet that article was regularly disparaged as 'useless' by readers in this same period. How is this??  But Mea culpa: I agree I should have perhaps incorporated your changes; and again- it wont be tonight... Mea maxima culpa: Yes, I added 2 sets of (what are to me only the most manifestly obvious and globally-referenced) examples sans explicit references, b/c 1) the totality of above group Discussion clearly shows commenters were confused by the  February 2008 article, in part b/c of previous refusals to engage any inevitable problem concerning relevant examples; and 2) I am not currently engaged with African-American Lit-crit. Perhaps in the course of a larger consensus-effort, another more expert in the field may come along and provide more academic sources for astute examples? I suggest this course is preferable to reverting to any earlier stage of the WP confusion about the term Signifying.
 * As to any other "departure": I'm involved with such gross, long-term and unresolved abuses of consensus in WP that I have yet to be moved by any automated mandates of mechanics. 'Consensus' along with fundamental sense are more motivating to me. At the same time, difficulties for particular persons do appear to be inherent in aspects of Signifying; indeed, considering the quote from the NYTimes article on musician Bo Didley referenced in the article - this is partly the point. I may a tendency to write longer sentences which other writers prefer to break apart. But I would caution any editor moved to alter that which they claim is difficult to understand without their first gaining a clearer understanding themselves.  Hilarleo (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * peace, okay? i'm not attacking you; and let me repeat: thank you for contributing to the article. yes, the previous version was unenlightening in many ways; now there's more information in it, which is an improvement; thank you again.
 * i understand that my earlier suggested modifications were made while your extensive rewriting was still in progress, which is why i stood back to let you do your thing. thank you for doing it. if you're still not finished, i'll wait some more before introducing any modifications. please let me know - thanks.
 * as for wikipedia policies, i'm not the person to argue with about them. i'd simply like to make some stylistic changes to the article - not to be disruptive or quarrelsome, but with the aim of improving readability and to bring it more in line with wikipedia's policies.  i'm glad you're open to that sort of modification. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Recursion?
This whole vacuous article seems to be an example of the sort of discourse that's being incompetently described as "signifyin'" As an in-joke parody of signifyin', it may have some merit. As an actual Wiki article, it has none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.250.238 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is much published work that uses or explains this term in an academic fashion: 'The Power of Black Music' by Samuel A. Floyd, Jr., 'The Signifying Monkey' by Henry Louis Gates, 'Yo mama's DisFUNKtional!' by Robin Kelley, etc.. I am trying to clear this article up but it's my first time and I don't know how to stop it being deleted?? Nswc5 (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on current state of article
I understand that several editors have put a great deal of work into this article. And I hope that they understand that I appreciate their effort.

I also have to say that I have read this article twice now, and I think that it fails to explain the topic to a lay reader.

I think that this article would greatly benefit from and opening paragraph with: 1) a two or three sentence capsule definition of the topic, in simple english, followed by 2) several examples of words or phrases in song or story and their modified, signifying meanings. --Zippy (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have changed it. Better? Nswc5 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

a suggestion for a re-write
I'm writing an essay on how the traditions of the blues have been carried through to rap and hip-hop, and obviously that includes a section on signifying.

Signifying is a complicated term, but at its most basic it is a self-referential awareness of a world of music outside the individual song. An example of this would be Muddy Waters’ “Mannish Boy”, in which he refers to himself as a ‘hoochie coochie man’ – the title of an equally well-known Waters song. Essentially, signifying is a way of coding a language so as to make it impenetrable to outsiders – or, if not impenetrable, then at the very least denying outsiders of the same level of knowledge and understanding that can be achieved by those ‘in the know’. Perhaps the most famous modern example of this can be found in Snoop Dogg’s “Who Am I (What’s My Name)?”, from his 1993 release Doggystyle – Snoop raps about doing a “187 on a muthaf***king cop”. This is a meaningless number for anyone who doesn’t know that 187 is the code used by police for a ‘murder death kill’, and thus the true meaning of the rap is obscured. As rap has become an established music form, with its own canon of artists and songs, many rappers reference well-known rap songs in their own. Snoop himself references Notorious B.I.G.’s hit ‘Hypnotize’ in his song ‘Lodi Dodi’; In ‘Let Me Clear My Throat’ DJ Kool ‘never lets the mic magnetize [him] no more’, a la Rakim in ‘Eric B. Is President’.

--Hrob5506 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "signifying is a way of coding a language so as to make it impenetrable to outsiders" is not directly a statement about signifying. It is speculation about a possible motive for signifyin'. I think any text in the article along these lines should 1) establish that signifyin' is a motivated action. 2) establish that it is sometimes or always a result of that motivation 3) not establish anything, but rather reference reliable sources WP:RS -- Radimast (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Example section, hard to read or intentional irony?
The mercurial and culturally-resonant nature of signifyin' tends to obviate given examples.

Is this meant to be ironic (as an example of signifying, Mercury was a god, and a planet, mercurial means of mercury and also "eloquence, ingenuity, and thievishness"), or is it just hard to read and unnecessarily wordy? It would be nice to find some source material for the examples section.

Radimast (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion (neologism)
I'm proposing this for deletion. It's nonsense disguised as an academic concept so advanced that nobody understands it, and therefore nobody's in a position to call it out as nonsense. How clever! We don't need that precedent. Anyone who wants this article to stay is welcome to rewrite it so that it defines its subject.

"Academic discussions of signifyin deal with critical and semiotic theory and employ erudite references to a wide range of ephemeral, sub-cultural and more literary work" implies that the academic literature on this subject can't constitute a reliable source, since it has even lower standards of verifiability than Wikipedia (we at least require that sources not be ephemeral). 169.237.108.234 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i've started to clean it up. Please give me time. Nswc5 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a month has now passed and it remains nonsense. Nominated for deletion here. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

== Intro (and 'example' sorted??? Oh, you really need to check out how hip hop mcees continually reinvent their lingo based on shared signifiers and rhetorical devices...how rappers invent new phrases as dialougue...)HOWEVER nothing else makes sense ==

Sorry but nobody knows anything about this at all. or certainly cannot write in a way that is understandable. i have sorted the intro and 'example' out. one criticism of my example is that it is Derrida; I would prefer a much more 'down to earth' example than a philosophical linguistic example!!!

Also, Hrob5506, your second example is flawed as Signifyin(g) is not simply removing outsiders from discourse by quoting subcultural lingo. the Snoop Dogg’s “Who Am I (What’s My Name)?” example is just quoting an esoteric fact that a subculture may be aware of. rather Signifyin(g) is quoting subcultural vernacular in a way that EXTENDS the meaning at the same time. so the first example is right as the use of Muddy Waters’ “Mannish Boy” with the rhetorical device of him as a ‘hoochie coochie man’ (the title of an equally well-known Waters song) EXTENDS the linguistic device for now 'hoochie coochie man’ is something more than what it was before: there is an interplay between the original meaning and the new meaning...which may continue in the subculture indefinitely changing over time [however, this is still not a great example. hip hop has loads but i'm not hot with that shit]. Also, Signifyin(g) is not specific to music! it's just lingo.

To make this really simple and somewhat crude. if i have a subcultural vernacular with my friends and then EXTEND a particular trope in some way that is 'written into', as new, our vernacular...then that is Signifyin(g). Nswc5 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I finally get it
It's like if you were talking about a serial killer who liked to kill women from Cuba and chop them up. You could say he likes "Cubin' Girls"... ??? --72.192.39.197 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

nah, that's just clever (?) wordplay ...

(the article, and concept, remain incomprehensible. -AgentSteel from 2006; first comment at top of discussion page)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.217.107 (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

heh.. check http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=signifyin%27 which is a far clearer explanation than this page. 62.56.96.122 (talk)

Huh?
I'd like to echo the comments from years ago about this article's opacity. After reading it carefully I have little understanding of what "signifyin'" is. The impenetrable Gates quote doesn't help. Nor do statements such as this:

Gates expands the term to refer not merely to a specific vernacular strategy but also to a trope of double-voiced repetition and reversal that exemplifies the distinguishing property of Black discourse.

I have no idea what that means. 71.166.248.180 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples needed
This article could really use some examples, to make it clear what 'signifyin(g)' is. It may be a complex and disputed concept, but that would go some way towards making this article easier to understand. As it is, it's pretty opaque - the Henry Louis Gates quote, in particular, seems downright incomprehensible to me. Robofish (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone do something
Jesus christ Bin it and start over Harshmustard (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific suggestion for or criticism of the article? If not, don't comment. Hyacinth (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the worst article on Wikipedia
Incomprehensible. Written in opaque language seemingly intended to obscure rather than convey meaning. A classic example of pretentious nonsense. There may well be a really important concept, but the writing here reminds me of the stuff undergraduates hand in to me when they barely understand a topic and dress up their single reference as "highly influential" to avoid justifying the fact they haven't read anything else.

To start with, "indirection" isn't a commonly used word and needs explaining if it's going to be used in the first line. There's "misdirection" and there's "indirect" but "indirection" isn't a word many people are familiar with.

Then in the second paragraph we have the wonderful phrase "subcultural vernacular". And what, pray tell, does that mean? Without skipping a beat, the author then announces that the concept is also "extending the meaning at the same time through a rhetorical figure". What's a "rhetorical figure"? Later on we find out that no explanation is required because the concept only makes sense to those who share the "unique cultural values of a given speech community". Well, that's all right then.

The whole thing is just jargon and pseudo-intellectual arm waving. There's no actual explanation here. Note that I'm not saying the concept itself isn't worth discussing or explaining; I'm sure that it is. But this article does nothing to help make Signifying clearer to anyone not familiar with the concept. Just a really, really bad article.

Cheers, Neale Monks (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "indirection". It's called a dictionary. Hyacinth (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know all about dictionaries. Can't speak for you, but I've written several books, so I do understand how the English language works. The point is that it isn't a commonly used word, not that the it isn't an actual word. The majority of hits on Google seem to be to do with computer programming. If you're going to write an article explaining something, then the explanation needs to be accessible. This particular article remains badly written and opaque. Cheers, Neale Monks (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you claim to have written four books, I could claim to have written five. If you claim to have three arms, I could claim to have four. If you've actually written books then hopefully you've read some. Regardless, you are probably aware that not everyone who writes a book, and not everyone who gets a book published, necessarily "understands how the English language works," so unless your books where about English grammar, that argument is neither verifiable nor relevant.
 * You say you know all about dictionaries, then you mention a google search, which is not a dictionary.
 * Hyacinth (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one who cast aspersions on the commenter's literacy, mr. "It's Called A Dictionary." Maybe you've noticed, but Monks is just one of a great many people who finds the content of this article opaque. Perhaps you're right and being a published author doesn't imply someone "understands how the English language works", according to whatever elite standard of English-understanding you have in mind, but this isn't a wiki for people who "understand how the English language works," it's a wiki for *english speakers*, and every single person who has complained is patently an English speaker. 198.162.158.16 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a deeper problem here - a novel category
I'm a newbie, by the way. I popped over here to Signifying because I was thinking about Camp. The article on camp is plagued by many of the same issues as this article on signifying. I have an idea why. Camp and signifying are performative modes, and that in itself is a relatively newfangled idea. It's hard to think of a long list of performative modes; that is, ways of being and doing that are characteristic of specific social and cultural groups, as camp is to gay society and culture and signfiying is to African-American society and culture. So maybe what we need here on Wikipedia is a more general understanding of what type of thing categories like "camp" and "signifying" are, so that we can develop articles about them that are not beset with the problems that currently plague these two entries. --Mhbroder (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to apply academic rigor inappropriately to a vernacular term
I agree there's a lot of pretentious nonsense on this page but I think the problem is that people want "signifyin'" to be something much more complex and specific than it actually is. I'm no expert, but I know enough to know that "signifyin'" (both the word and whatever concept[s] it may represent) were not devised by professors or other academics; on the contrary, they were part of the Black American vernacular for decades, probably centuries, before anyone took a scholarly interest in defining them. As such, it's artificial to try to put some rigorous label or definition on what the word may or may not mean--I think that's what the person above is getting at with regard to performativity. As near as I can tell, "signifyin'" simply means wordplay, often used to mock or trick others, whether they be members of the in-group (through creative insults or boasts--"capping," "the dozens," whatever you want to call it) or outsiders (through esoteric or intentionally confusing language). Therefore, someone simply speaking "jive" or Ebonics wouldn't necessarily be an example of "signifyin,'" unless the speaker is trying to make fun of or trick the person being spoken to. I know this definition is rather broad and unsatisfying, but like any vernacularism, it has multiple, interrelated but distinct meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.215.6 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.142.15 (talk)

Expert needed
I wouldn't feel confident going to work on this myself, but:
 * The main definition (paragraph 3) doesn't really define the subject. "[A] trope, in which are subsumed several other rhetorical tropes, including metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony (the master tropes), and also hyperbole, litotes, and metalepsis. To this list we could easily add aporia, chiasmus, and catachresis" — that's not specifying or delineating anything, that's just name checking half the headwords in Literary Techniques. If "signifying'" is really just a term for "wordplay when done by African Americans," then why not just say so?
 * The main definition is also contradicted by the main example, a yo momma joke. You momma jokes don't work by "exploit[ing] the gap between the denotative and figurative meanings of words," they work by having the listener picturing a fat person. The word they use to make the listener picture a fat person is... "fat." Not much of a gap here.
 * The main definition is also contradicted by the first source.
 * The article is dominated by a lengthy Gates quote that doesn't really say anything. The paragraph is intimidating but incomprehensible. It adds nothing but additional obfuscation. It's a very good illustration of Gates' modus operandi, but Gates isn't supposed to be the subject of the article. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the paragraph as such. If we're honest, we all kind of know that writing like this is what you do if you want tenure in certain parts of the humanities, so Gates is simply being good at his job here. An encyclopedia, however, needs to aim at accessibility, not impressiveness.) Filjil (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Signifyin'. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923023830/http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/signifying.html to http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/signifying.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

[Unclear]
This is an awful article. Way too academic. I read it but still have no idea what signifying is - a first for a wikipedia entry. Perhaps more examples are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.51 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like what Petey Greene was talking about
As mentioned at the end of this video Petey was known to say I'll tell it to the hot, I'll tell it to the cold. I'll tell it to the young, I'll tell it to the old. I don't want no laughin', I don't want no cryin', and most of all, no signifyin'.see also. It looks like this article has gotten so lost in academic jargon it misses a straight-forward definition of what this term means. It sounds more like fronting (An act of putting on a false façade to impress people.) to me from how it's used, but from the description and scant examples here you can't really tell what is being defined. - Scarpy (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What is signifyin'?
It's been 15 years since the first complaint about this article's fuzziness was made and it still reads like pig Latin. Multiple definitions have been given, but none was explained in detail. We already have articles on puns, irony, metaphor, ribaldry, etc. What makes signifyin' a distinct thing? What exactly is the axis or mechanism connecting everything? The examples go from irony and wordplay to musical sampling and some propped-up jibber-jabber about ressignifying an idea. No clear link between these two completely different fields. All in all, it reads as a torrent of padding and nonsense, with little objectivity/clarity. If this can't be clearly defined no matter how many rewrites it gets, I'd consider deletion so readers' time is not wasted. 2804:7F0:3989:89F:D9C1:6090:636:90D0 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process
— Assignment last updated by Nicole0018 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process
— Assignment last updated by 4vli4bdel (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)