Just some comments

Here are just a couple of things that stood out to me from today's readings (they're kind of all disconnected, but I guess that's ok because Luntz says that "Americans are easily bored" and that we should try to keep "offering something new")

In his Appendix, Orwell explains that in Newspeak, any word can become a verb, noun, adjective, or adverb. Now that it's 2008, there's something to be said for this prediction. People verb words quite often now (like that). Sometimes people do it just to be funny, but some legitimate verbs are words that are normally considered nouns (let's table this discussion for now, the chef just plated the salmon).

Regarding Orwell's discussion about Newspeak plurals all following the same rules (add -s or -es to every noun), I think some of our current words have already started following that pattern. Now, it is acceptable to say indexes instead of indices and appendixes instead of appendices.

Luntz is in dialogue with Orwell in his first and second rules, which are to use small words and short sentences. From political speeches to persuasive advertising, sticking to the rules of shortness can influence voter response and sales.

Luntz's rule number 3 is about the importance of credibility. I find it interesting that he mentions the M&Ms slogan throughout the chapter (Melts in your mouth, not in your hand), but does not mention why that slogan is no longer in use. My guess is because it was not credible...so many M&Ms have melted in my hands over the years! I had hoped Luntz would bring that up as one of his examples of why credibility is important for a slogan's success.

Context is a recurring theme in our analysis of language; Luntz stresses it yet again for persuasive types of speech and language.

--------------------------------------------------------------

News flash:

The TV is on at our house right now, as I type this post. A Vehix commercial just came on and said something about "Power Circle ratings." My roomate said something along the lines of "what does that even mean?" and it prompted me to mention it here. It's an example of one of those "ambiguous" phrases that are sometimes used in persuasive speech. I don't really know what it means, but it sounds official and important so I should probably be interested in the product.

This discussion in turn reminded us of the new shampoo/skin care commercials that emphasize how their product fights "free radicals." What? This term is framed so that it makes us think there's something "bad" that we really need to be fighting...so we'll be more likely to buy a product that promises to help us in our fight.

Reading and talking about persuasive discourse has made me more alert of framing and unusual terms when such advertisements appear. I've noticed I've been consciously analyzing them more, so I had to mention these two commercials to end this post!