Graphology, the ridiculous pseudoscience debunked and redebunked many times over the decades, holds that one can determine a person’s primary personality traits based largely on their penmanship. That is of course utter hogwash. Even if the basic tenets of graphology were correct (and they just might be!), one’s personality is likely not to be fully formed by the time one learns to write. Major life experiences, significant physical and biochemical maturation, and important destiny-making choices are still far in the future. Also, one does not necessarily have much to say about how one writes and shapes letter symbols, given the dictates of one’s third grade writing teacher. (Some, who espouse orthographic determinism, would claim that being forced to write in a particular style does in fact shape one’s personality. Again, utter hogwash.)

Graphophonetics, the rigorous new science that I have proven and reproven five times over in the present study, is completely different, despite the common core concepts. Graphophonetics holds that one can determine a person’s primary linguistic personality traits based largely on the way they write when doing transcription in IPA.

There are three key facts about Graphophonetics and the IPA:

• IPA symbols are usually learned after adolescence, in college phonetics and phonology classes, when one’s basic personality is much more solidified.
• No one teaching the symbols at the college level imposes strict rules about shape, form, slant, and height. As long as the symbols are sufficiently distinct from one another and sufficiently similar to the canonical shape so as to be clear, variation is tolerated.
• Phonetic and phonological transcription is a fairly difficult, attention-consuming, yet typically dispassionate task. The personality comes through most clearly in writing where the content does not stir the emotions, yet the writer’s focus is not on the act of writing per se.

To clear the present study from the unfair but likely taint of graphology, I have conducted not a blind study, not a double blind study, but a Quintuple Meta-Blind Study,^©® designed by Rosalia Rusalka, Chair of LÜLU’s Statistical Linguistics Department. The study is not only blind, but Meta-Blind because not even I am allowed to know how the quintuple blinding works.

To validate the claims of the newly devised Grapho-Phonetic Linguopsychic Personality Map (GPLPM), I have compared the results of my quintuple-blind graphophonetic analysis with the more traditional, well-established Whorf-Sapir Psycholinguimetric Inventory (WSPI). Both systems identify and quantify similar linguistic personality traits, so why the need for a new system? The main reason is that a person taking the WSPI knows that a linguistic personality inventory is being administered, and they may try to skew the results in a way believed to give a more favorable outcome. GPLPM, on the other hand, can be applied to anyone, living or dead, without their knowledge or consent, as long as an adequate transcription sample is available. How wonderful!

An extended selection of transcription samples (all of “Speculative Grammarian” to better highlight the variation in symbol forms) is provided below. Included is a summary of the most relevant results of Graphophonetic Analysis (which includes variation and choice of letter shapes, slant, spacing, horizontal and vertical alignment, uniformity, specificity of transcription and choice of symbols, similarity to canonical symbol shapes, arbitrariness, productivity, duality, displacement, transmissivity, and discreteness) and a voluntary Whorf-Sapir Psycholinguimetric Inventory taken by the transcriber.

GPLPM: morphosyntactically immature WSPI: morphologically stunted; not syntactically advanced		GPLPM: theoretically uncommitted WSPI: non-Chomskian; non–non-Chomskian
GPLPM: theoretically iconoclastic WSPI: syntactically bold; non-conformist		GPLPM: eager to please; theoretically vapid WSPI: willing TA; descriptive linguist
GPLPM: destined to be adjunct faculty WSPI: down-to-earth, no-nonsense, reliable		GPLPM: developmentally delayed WSPI: strong structuralist tendencies
GPLPM: sociolinguist WSPI: unfit for abstruse theoretical work		GPLPM: antisociolinguist WSPI: unfit to work with other linguists
GPLPM: sociopatholinguist WSPI: unfit to live in polite society		GPLPM: speculative linguist WSPI: satirical leanings
GPLPM: indicative of linguistic élan and flair WSPI: shows linguistic verve and style		GPLPM: innovative yet tentative non-conformist WSPI: potential ground-breaker; needs encouragement
GPLPM: theoretical syntactician WSPI: sloppy and lacks attention to detail		GPLPM: α has moved on; ready to retire WSPI: over-the-hill; can’t learn new tricks
GPLPM: Noam Chomsky WSPI: a bit too slick, tends to believe own hype		GPLPM: * WSPI: infelicitous
GPLPM: community college remedial English instructor WSPI: insecure, tries too hard, fails often		GPLPM: syntactically aggressive yet unsure WSPI: shows angry syntax and fear of rejection
GPLPM: self-hating closeted functionalist WSPI: wants to conform, but has strong need to rebel		GPLPM: strong philological tendencies WSPI: old-fashioned, un-modern, retro
GPLPM: computational linguist WSPI: preternatural regularity; likely OCD		GPLPM: English Lit major WSPI: unfit for practicing linguistics
GPLPM: theoretically apathetic WSPI: strong generative proclivity		GPLPM: descriptive sociolinguist WSPI: supremely competent and self-assured
GPLPM: strong lexicalist leanings WSPI: fervent anti-lexicalist		GPLPM: straight-laced herd-mentality conformist WSPI: strong satirical and parodical motivations

Careful readers will have noticed that the last four samples show a marked difference between the results of the Graphophonetic analysis and the Whorf-Sapir inventory. At first I was concerned that this was a sign of a significant failing in the GPLPM methodology, but in a Triply Meta-Blind Study,^©® again designed by Profesora Rusalka, extensive background checks and personal interviews with the subjects and their friends, family, and professional colleagues were conducted for the four mismatched individuals, and a control group of eight other participants. In each case, the conclusions of the investigators (all former intelligence officers from various US three-letter agencies) were much more in line with the results of the GPLPM than the WSPI. My conclusion is that these individuals, consciously or not, were projecting the image of themselves they wanted to portray when taking the WSPI, rather than letting their true selves come through. This again demonstrates the extra usefulness of this sort of Graphophonetic analysis.

	Is Translation Possible?—The Answer Rhymes with Noh—Prof. Trent Slater
	The Divine Future of Linguistics, Part I—John Miaou
	SpecGram Vol CLVIII, No 2 Contents