Tag Archives: semantics

Faber Drive – Candy Store

Here’s a recent hit that I find absolutely brimming with semantic richness. Very sweet (hah) and brilliantly done. The lyrics are below. In bold – proprietary names. In italicschamps lexical of confectionary goods, but more generic. Underlined: spots where the multiple meanings elicit the strongest affective response (my gut reaction; obviously there are plenty more throughout the whole song).

Video:

Lyrics:

I can’t wait another night to see you
Gotta satisfy my sweet tooth
A little like Reese’s fallin’ into Pieces
Tell me there’s a way to do this
I just wanna kiss your hot lips
Girl you make me melt like chocolate
Jawbreaker you got the kiss that I wanna savour

Oh oh oh oh
Lifesaver you’re my life saver
Oh oh oh oh
You got the love with a thousand flavours

Chorus: Oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
I know your love is such a sugar rush and I can never get enough
I’m like oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
Yeah honey you’re the sweetest thing I’ve ever seen before
I’m like a kid in a candy store

Baby I’m love sick
I just gotta get my next fix
Pour a little sugar on this
Heart breaker
You be the dough and I’ll be the baker
Mr. Christie never knew
A recipe as hot as you
You’re Rihanna I’m Eminem (M&M)
Melts in your mouth, not in your hands

Oh oh oh oh
Lifesaver you’re my life saver
Oh oh oh oh
You got the love, you got the good flavour

Chorus: Oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
I know your love is such a sugar rush and I can never get enough
I’m like oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
Yeah honey you’re the sweetest thing I’ve ever seen before
I’m like a kid in a candy store

How you doin’ sugar
You’re sweeter than dessert nice to meet you
The name is Ish, I’ll admit it I gotta sweet tooth
But that’s ight, I promise that I won’t bite
Girl, unless that’s something that you’re into
I’m playin’, I’m sayin’ you’re with it in the song
And there ain’t no competition
You’re in a league of your own
Gotcha hooked soon as I get you alone
You could bet that
Now break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat

I can’t wait another night to see you
Gotta satisfy my sweet tooth
Lifesaver you’re my life saver
You got the kiss with a thousand flavours

Chorus x2: Oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
I know your love is such a sugar rush and I can never get enough
I’m like oh oh oh oh and I really want more oh oh oh
Yeah honey you’re the sweetest thing I’ve ever seen before
I’m like a kid in a candy store

—-

I hadn’t heard of Heart Breakers before, but they do exist according to this, something like Gobstoppers: “The Heart Breakers are a similarly layered candy with a sweet & sour chalk center. The color variety is different here than the regular bright versions in the box and lacking a green/apple one. But they gain a pink/strawberry.”

Starbucks Blonde Roast and NLP

This morning I spotted a new ad circulating for Starbucks Blonde Roast, presumably created because many people find Starbucks coffee to be too dark. It read:

A Starbucks coffee for Canadians who don’t think they like Starbucks coffee. Starbucks Blonde Roast.

What I’d like to focus on here is the significance in the placement of the word “don’t”.

Consider the following situation: I’ve decided that I don’t like Starbucks coffee. Therefore, I (a Canadian, Cx) have a thought in my mind (Tx), and that thought is that I don’t like Starbucks coffee (~Lsx).

Hence – ∃x & Cx & Tx(~Lsx) – There exist Canadians who have in their mind that they do not like Starbucks coffee. (meaning 1)

However, examining the text of the ad more closely, we can draw a slightly different implication from it due to the semantic flexibility provided by the placement of “don’t”.

Consider: ∀xCx & ~(Tx Lsx) -> Lbx

For every Canadian who does not have the thought that they like Starbucks coffee, they will like the Blonde Roast (meaning 2)

Now, of course, in casual conversation, one might say “I don’t think I like X”, meaning “I don’t like X, but I’m open to being persuaded otherwise” (meaning 3). Both and 3, valid interpretations of the ad text, share the common ground of portraying the consumer as an individual who can be convinced of the error of his ways.

Poking around a bit for internet usage of both phrases:

1) Ghits for I think I don’t like X- 12 million +

Unfortunately. one example of this phrase + Starbucks does not contain the same meaning as what could be gleaned from the ad (it’s just an assertion followed by an explanation, though it does of course give ~Lsx) :

I think I don’t like Starbucks because everything tastes so burnt

2) Ghits for I don’t think I like X- 18 million+ including 6 results for I don’t think I like Starbucks.

—-

Still, Starbucks’ wording of the ad sneaks around the notion that there are people who just don’t like their coffee. Instead, by placing the “don’t” in front of “think”, i.e. saying “Canadians who don’t think they like Starbucks” and not “Canadians who think they don’t like Starbucks“, Starbucks is subtly suggesting that it’s not the case that people have negative thoughts about their coffee, but rather that they haven’t formed an opinion or simply haven’t discovered Starbucks Blonde Roast (b). What strengthens this is the addition of “think” to the mix because it suggests that taste is a matter of opinion and regulated by thought, a trick rather characteristic of neuro-linguistic programming.

I, for one, usually make coffee at home, and I don’t always go to Starbucks, but when I do, I order Blonde Roast.