On "Turn Down For What"

The following was originally written as a final paper and the last paper of my undergraduate career.

The class was Grammar & Stylistics, and the prompt was to write "a four-page description and analysis of a worthwhile sentence or textual fragment (your choice)." A screenshot of the first half-page was retweeted by Lil Jon himself. 

Due to popular demand, I am releasing it here into the wilderness of the internet.

________________________________________

EMC
9 Jun 2014
Prof. G

Grammar & Stylistics: Final Paper

“Turn down for what?”

—Lil Jon 

“Turn down for what?” is the titular question of rapper Lil Jon and DJ Snake's 2014 chart-topping trap single, “Turn Down For What.” The song has 27 lines and two unique lyrics, twelve lines of the song consisting of the lyric “Fire up that loud/’Nother round of shots,” which builds up to the chorus lyric “Turn down for what?” which constitutes the remaining fifteen lines and majority of the song. Upon discovering the actual lyric, first-time listeners may find themselves faced with a question that is totally incomprehensible. First, it must be explained that “turn down” is the slang term opposite the corresponding slang “turn up,” which refers to getting “crunk” (a portmanteau of the words “crazy” and “drunk”). Lil Jon’s rhetorical question has been adopted by youth culture as a rallying cry to live unapologetically wildly and to “turn down” for nothing and nobody, spawning countless internet memes, videos of kittens set to trap music, and sober and drunken yells alike.

Proponents of the “turn down for what” rally cry often forget that the lyric first strikes the listener not with party-or-die fervor but with blank confusion at the grammatical ambiguity of the sentence. Who is turning down, and what is being turned down? Is the sentence an exclamation, an imperative, or a question? If the sentence functions as a rhetorical question, what lexical content does “what” refer to? The sentence is so lexically and grammatically baffling that it is amazing that it has caught on as a popular proverb.
First of all, it is questionable that “Turn down for what?” is a standalone sentence or independent clause to begin with. We see that the sentence is omitting an undefined subject, which implies that “Turn down for what?” is a response to a previous statement that goes along the lines of “You should turn down.” We assume that the subject is not mentioned because a previous question has already specified who should be turning down. However, omitting the subject allows gives the sentence flexibility when it is taken out of context, making it applicable to any individual the circumstance requires. The blank subject can be filled with any possible pronoun and it allows the sentence to function not only as a defensive rhetorical question, but also as a provocative command.

In the case that “Turn down for what?” is a response to a previous statement and the omitted subject is the first-person pronoun “I” or “we,” as in “What should I turn down for?” or “What should we turn down for?” the sentence becomes defensive, and the rhetorical question protects the speaker, allowing them to proclaim that there is no reason for which they will turn down. In the case that the omitted subject is “you,” “they,” or any other second- or third-person pronoun, the rhetorical question provokes a call to action, urging those being asked “What should you turn down for?” to respond with “Nothing!” In this case, the rhetorical question forces the question on the omitted subject and is even manipulative, pressuring the subject to conform to the implied answer. The cleverness of the question in this case is that, by implying the subject rather than stating the subject directly, those who are being asked the question will be less conscious that they are being implicated in the call to action. It is easier to realize the ridiculousness of the response “I will turn down for nothing!” once you see your person placed in the context of the sentence, but easier to become caught up in the forcefully vague response of “Nothing!” when you are not fully aware that you have answered a question that pertains to your specific behavioral choices.

This understanding of “Turn down for what?” as a rhetorical imperative is augmented because it is mainly verbalized as a loud shout that lacks the upward inflection of a question. Though the sentence might look inquisitive on paper, in practice it functions as an exclamation or imperative. No one shouting “Turn down for what?” is sincerely examining reasons why they should turn down. Like other rhetorical questions such as “Who cares?” (“No one”) or “Why not?” (“No reason”), the question “Turn down for what?” implies the obvious answer “Nothing.” So, though the sentence is technically interrogative, it really functions as the imperative sentence “Do not turn down for anything!” Its imperative nature is fully realized as it is spoken as a screaming shout, stripping the sentence of any pretense of being sincerely inquisitive. The interrogative in this case thus acts not as free inquiry but as hypnotic mantra, and robs the subject of choice.

A last point of interest is the lexical content that the word “what” holds in this sentence. Rearranging the sentence into its basic structure, the question “What should we turn down for?” invites the respondent to think of scenarios in which he may have good reason to turn down. In this case, the word “what” encompasses an infinite number of scenarios, fulfilling its role as an interrogative pronoun. In response to the question “What should we turn down for?” the respondent is actually challenged to answer the question “why” rather than “what.” The question becomes “Why should we turn down?” and allows the mind to roam scenarios such as “I have a career-determining job interview early tomorrow morning” or “The police are here and if we do not turn down we will be arrested.” However, the arrangement of the question “Turn down for what?” vastly limits the range of possible meanings of the word “what” by making “what” the object of the preposition. Now, rather than meaning “Why should we turn down?” as it does in its basic configuration, the word “what” is implied to be a simplistic, short noun. While “why” questions allow for lengthy responses, “what” questions prompt simplistic answers. Answering the question “Turn down for what?” with a truncated response like “sleep” or “the future” leaves the response sounding brief and weak. And so, since it seems that few nouns are fit to justify turning down, the forgone conclusion is that the lexical meaning of “what” in this question is “nothing.” Instead of representing an infinite range of nouns, the meaning of “what” becomes determinedly obvious. It acts as an equivalent to the word “nothing” just as it does in the rhetorical question “and all for what?” (“Nothing.”) Interestingly, “what” is deprived of its flexibility and no longer represents even a noun phrase, but nothingness.

So the ambiguity of the sentence “Turn down for what?” has played with many young minds that are not aware of the grammatical shrewdness that have been used against them. As a question, it does not actually seek an answer, and does not even alert the respondent that they have been implicated into a certain behavior. Subject-less and unspecified, it can be apply to anyone in the vicinity. “Turn down for what?” hides under the guise of an interrogative sentence, but really exists as a hypnotic imperative motto that questions others but does not invite questions upon itself.