A Comparative Analysis of Metal Subgenres in Terms of Lexical
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Comparative Analysis of Metal Subgenres in Terms of Lexical Richness and Keyness Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Volkan Kahraman geboren in Frankfurt, Deutschland München, Oktober 2020 Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Angela Hahn Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Schmid Drittgutachter: PD Dr. Peter-Arnold Mumm Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 14. Juli 2020 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have always heard from people around me about the difficulties of doing a PhD, most of which centered on the psychological damage it leaves on the scholars. Although I had anticipated similar effects, I was also confident that I would do it more easily since it is on a subject which I like the most – metal. By the end of the study, I was baffled by my own naiveté. Now I find it strange that I still love metal music. I resemble the effort and misery in this long-lasting study to the one in the recording session of W.A.S.P.’s The Crimson Idol album of which detailed account is provided by Blackie Lawless himself in the album sleeve as follows: When I started this record, I had no idea of how long it would take or the diverse elements involved, so we started keeping track. 425 drum heads, 54 sets of guitar strings, 75 guitar picks, over 24 miles of recording tape (48 reels of 2” tape), 150 cassettes, 315 gallons of beer (both domestic and import, Corona Extra owes us and endorsement), 27 gallons of Smirnoff vodka (Pierre was real popular on this one), 175 gallons of drinking water (this Hollywood shit isn’t fit to swallow), 251 gallons of soft drinks, 286 rolls of toilet paper (no comment), 210 light bulbs, over 1,200 pinball games (Mikey’s the champ), 15 bottles of aspirin (see Smirnoff), 32 bottles of Vitamin C, an unruly 24 track machine named “Otis” (who did not go the distance), one 6.1 earthquake, and a fucking major flood in Feb. ’92 to top it all off. All this and a couple of dozen “knock-down, drag-out” arguments later, this monstrosity is finally complete.1 I personally did not keep such a detailed record probably because I had never thought it would last this long. Laid out in Lawless’s fashion, the grand total for the present thesis consists of eight years of study, serious loss of hair, becoming a father, diagnosis of my dad with an incurable disease, a global pandemic (SARS-CoV-2), a three-month lockdown and the subsequent travel restrictions (still on), two car accidents, a broken computer, a broken tablet, nine colloquiums, over 700 articles and books read, 510 pages written, 180 pages deleted, countless sleepless nights, oceans of coffee and enough headaches to pass a mammoth out. All this and thousands of the infamous question “when will you be done?” later, this “monstro-study” is finally complete. I would like to thank my supervisor (Doktormutter) Prof. Dr. Angela Hahn for her endless support and belief in my dissertation. This thesis would not have existed were it not for you. Your easy-going and positive attitude always kept me 1 W.A.S.P. – The Crimson Idol (1992), Sanctuary Productions, Parlophone. p. 3. 3 on track whenever I felt astray or lost in the study. I feel myself honored to be your student. Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Schmid for his invaluable contribution especially in the analyses; PD Dr. Peter-Arnold Mumm for his positive feedback; Dr. Abdullah Can without whose books and first-hand support I would have a hard time; Dr. İsmet Öztürk – my MA supervisor – who encouraged and helped me to continue my academic career to a PhD; Dr. Meral Öztürk for being there when I needed some advice; late Prof. Dr. Şeref Kara for his unforgettable support (RIP); Prof. Dr. Aysan Şentürk, Prof. Dr. Sevda Gürsakal and Dr. Melih Engin for their most valuable assistance in statistics; Tom Cobb for his outstanding work at lextutor.ca and his prompt communication; Meik Michalke for his superb koRpus plugin and replying my emails quickly and positively; Dr. Monika Geist for her clear explanations and continuous help; my “classmates” Dr. Franz Steinberger, Dr. Jan Ullmann and Klára Klimčíková for their tremendous support – as well as all the fun; Dr. Umut Salihoğlu and Dr. Uğur Çetinavcı for always being there whenever I needed some help; Prof. Dr. Müfit Parlak and Dr. Sıdıka Parlak for their endless support and encouragement; Prof. Dr. İ. Naci Cangül, Prof. Dr. İlkin Çavuşoğlu, Prof. Dr. Sezen Özeke, Prof. Dr. Ömer Kaynaklı, Dr. Bülent Şenay and Dr. Ozan Aşık – my former and current bosses – as well as my colleagues for their support and understanding; Lec. Mehmet Doğan for his outstanding support and German translations; Prof. Dr. Yunus Alyaz who have shown great interest in my work; Dr. Z. Ezgi Kara for all the help; My dear wife İnci Kahraman who never gave up supporting and believing in me and always helped me up when I felt badly down; my dear son Doruk Kahraman, who was born during my PhD study, for being unexpectedly understanding when I had to write this dissertation during when I actually should have been spending time with him; my mom and dad, who have impatiently waited for this, for all their efforts, help and belief in me; Last but not least, I would like to thank metal music for giving me a degree in academia as well as a lifestyle. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 9 II. TABLES ........................................................................................................ 10 III. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... 14 IV. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................... 16 V. ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. 21 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 23 1.1. Research Questions ................................................................................ 25 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 27 2.1. Genres ..................................................................................................... 28 2.1.1. The Notion of Genre ....................................................................... 28 2.1.1.1. Terminology ............................................................................ 29 2.1.1.2. Definitions ............................................................................... 32 2.1.1.3. Classification and Comparison of Genres ............................... 34 2.1.2. Genres in Metal ............................................................................... 39 2.1.2.1. Definitions ............................................................................... 39 2.1.2.2. Classification of Metal Subgenres ........................................... 42 2.1.2.2.1. Categorization by Bands ....................................................... 44 2.1.2.2.2. Categorization by the Public ................................................. 46 2.1.2.2.3. Notable Scholars and Mediators ........................................... 47 2.1.2.3. Comparison of Metal Subgenres ............................................. 54 2.1.3. The Three Metal Subgenres Used in the Current Study ................. 56 2.1.3.1. Heavy Metal ............................................................................. 57 5 2.1.3.2. Thrash Metal ............................................................................ 58 2.1.3.3. Death Metal ............................................................................. 60 2.2. Corpus Linguistics .................................................................................. 62 2.2.1. Corpus Analysis .............................................................................. 70 2.2.2. Lyrics Corpora and Studies ............................................................. 74 2.3. Lexical Richness ..................................................................................... 85 2.3.1. Existing theories and classification ................................................. 86 2.3.2. Observational level ......................................................................... 89 2.3.3. Operational Level (Measurement Methods) ................................... 91 2.3.3.1. Measures of Lexical Variation (Lexical Diversity): ................ 94 2.3.3.2. Measures of Lexical Sophistication (rareness/rarity) ............ 101 2.3.3.2.1. Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) ........................................ 102 2.3.3.2.2. Other LS Measures.............................................................. 121 2.3.3.3. Measures of Lexical Density ................................................. 123 2.3.4. Studies on Lexical Richness.......................................................... 127 2.3.4.1. Lexical Variation ................................................................... 127 2.3.4.2. Lexical Sophistication ........................................................... 128 2.3.4.3. Lexical Density ...................................................................... 133 2.3.4.4. Comparison ............................................................................ 135 2.3.5. The Approach in the Current Study .............................................. 139 2.4. Keyness ................................................................................................ 143 3. METHODOLOGICAL