Excuses, excuses: why I dread writing
17 years ago
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Another thought
On pg 132, Baron says "I have yet to hear of Americans using their mobiles for beeping as a thrift measure." (Beeping is calling someone, letting the phone ring once, and hanging up in order to avoid using minutes or paying extra). I have done this before - not because I was out of minutes, but because my friend was out of minutes and texts. I was planning to meet him at his dorm on a football weekend, so he had to let me into the building. He told me ahead of time to call him and hang up right away so that he would know I was there (at this point ND had stopped providing landlines in rooms).
My proj
I am planning to study Notre Dame students' use of abbreviations in everyday speech (spoken or online). Here are the main divisions so far:
Standard/ND-wide abbreviations: campus buildings (LaFun), concepts relating to ND (The Observ)
More obscure abbreviations used by fewer people (but are still somewhat easily understood by others, although sometimes only in context) - Pizza can be either piz' (peets) or 'za
Failed abbreviations - sometimes people come up with a new one and expect others to understand, but they just don't: FAC
I am going to take note of abbreviations that I observe in people's speech, and I will administer a survey asking participants to list some of their fave abbrevs and provide background/reasons for using those particular abbreviations.
Standard/ND-wide abbreviations: campus buildings (LaFun), concepts relating to ND (The Observ)
More obscure abbreviations used by fewer people (but are still somewhat easily understood by others, although sometimes only in context) - Pizza can be either piz' (peets) or 'za
Failed abbreviations - sometimes people come up with a new one and expect others to understand, but they just don't: FAC
I am going to take note of abbreviations that I observe in people's speech, and I will administer a survey asking participants to list some of their fave abbrevs and provide background/reasons for using those particular abbreviations.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
iPod
I saw a new iPod commercial this weekend that boasted "The funnest iPod ever." This reminded me of Luntz because he indicates that sometimes it's ok to sacrifice good grammar for the sake of sound and texture (which help make the advertisement more memorable).
Other examples of this that Luntz points out include Bounty paper towels: "The quicker picker upper" and "Think Different," which is actually another Mac slogan.
Just thought this was interesting and thought I would mention it while we were on the topic of persuasive language!
Other examples of this that Luntz points out include Bounty paper towels: "The quicker picker upper" and "Think Different," which is actually another Mac slogan.
Just thought this was interesting and thought I would mention it while we were on the topic of persuasive language!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Analysis of an Indian Editorial
Using the dimensions presented by Fairclough, I'm going to attempt to analyze an editorial from The Times of India. The editorial is entitled "One for Ramadoss" and can be found here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/One_for_Ramadoss/articleshow/3563692.cms
Basically, Health Minister Anbumari Ramadoss argues for decriminalizing homosexuality in India, and the author of this editoral supports Ramadoss' position.
According to Fairclough, this article is considered a text in written/visual form (as opposed to spoken text).
Fairclough's dimension of representation is divided into what the text includes and what it excludes. In this example, one element that is included is a description of the worst form of punishment for homosexuality in India: 10 years in prison. On the other hand, the text excludes descriptions of other, perhaps more "typical" punishments and information regarding exactly how one incurs the different punishments.
Another element that Fairclough outlines is presupposition. This article may presuppose that no one else has expressed this opinion before, at least not publicly. Any other supporters of decriminalizing homosexuality are backgrounded while the opinion of this public figure is foregrounded. There is no indication that Ramadoss built his opinion from the statements of others.
The dimension of events and actions is illustrated in this article as well. The text is primarily active and the author personifies concepts such as "state" as the actor. For example, "The state should no longer concern itself with what consenting adults choose to do in private" and "The Delhi high court is examining a public interest litigation on the subject."
Along the same lines, the author also uses nominalizations. Again, concepts such as "state," "society," and "home ministry" become concrete.
Fairclough also discusses the use of summaries, formulation, quotations, and reactions. This editorial is based on a summary of both the current policy and Ramadoss' statements opposing it.
However, this text could also be viewed as focusing on Ramadoss' reaction to the policy of Section 377. OR it could even be viewed as the author's reaction to Ramadoss' reaction.
These are the primary elements that I was able to extract from this editorial (hopefully I used the elements correctly). I also noticed a couple of things that Orwell or Luntz would point out, but I will save those for another time since I wanted to focus on Fairclough for this discussion.
Basically, Health Minister Anbumari Ramadoss argues for decriminalizing homosexuality in India, and the author of this editoral supports Ramadoss' position.
According to Fairclough, this article is considered a text in written/visual form (as opposed to spoken text).
Fairclough's dimension of representation is divided into what the text includes and what it excludes. In this example, one element that is included is a description of the worst form of punishment for homosexuality in India: 10 years in prison. On the other hand, the text excludes descriptions of other, perhaps more "typical" punishments and information regarding exactly how one incurs the different punishments.
Another element that Fairclough outlines is presupposition. This article may presuppose that no one else has expressed this opinion before, at least not publicly. Any other supporters of decriminalizing homosexuality are backgrounded while the opinion of this public figure is foregrounded. There is no indication that Ramadoss built his opinion from the statements of others.
The dimension of events and actions is illustrated in this article as well. The text is primarily active and the author personifies concepts such as "state" as the actor. For example, "The state should no longer concern itself with what consenting adults choose to do in private" and "The Delhi high court is examining a public interest litigation on the subject."
Along the same lines, the author also uses nominalizations. Again, concepts such as "state," "society," and "home ministry" become concrete.
Fairclough also discusses the use of summaries, formulation, quotations, and reactions. This editorial is based on a summary of both the current policy and Ramadoss' statements opposing it.
However, this text could also be viewed as focusing on Ramadoss' reaction to the policy of Section 377. OR it could even be viewed as the author's reaction to Ramadoss' reaction.
These are the primary elements that I was able to extract from this editorial (hopefully I used the elements correctly). I also noticed a couple of things that Orwell or Luntz would point out, but I will save those for another time since I wanted to focus on Fairclough for this discussion.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A little on the VP debate
I'm looking forward to class discussion regarding tonight's VP debate (Oct 2). For now, here are a few political-speech elements that I noticed.
Senator Biden used a couple of terms that have shown up in some of our readings. For example,
he used the word "fairness" a couple of times in explaining/definding his positions regarding taxes and healthcare. Luntz mentions that "'fairness' has always been a core component of the Democratic lexicon" and that "When you hear the word spoken, you know the party affiliation of the speaker" (207). Perhaps it was this paragraph that made me more attentive to Biden's use of this word.
Biden also used the phrase "ultimate bridge to nowhere," which Orwell might critique as an overused or unnecessary metaphor.
One of my housemates was bothered by the fact that Biden frequently referred to himself in the third person. I don't recall this element in any of our readings, but it made me wonder why he did this. Is there any persuasive/political element to the use of the third person in this sense?
A couple of unclear metaphors appeared on Gov. Palin's side, such as the use of the term "barometer" and "toxic mess on Wall Street."
She also frequently used the phrase "tax relief," which George Lakoff noted was a common conservative/Republican phrase. Having read Lakoff, I was more in tune to the use of this term just as I was for the use of "fairness" on the Democratic side.
I think Orwell would also criticize Palin for using phrases that she did not fully understand...actually, she used several paradoxical phrases that simply did not make sense:
"Clean, green natural gas"
"Environmentally friendly drilling"
And my personal favorite -
"Team of mavericks"
The word "maverick" has been thrown around so much lately that it is becoming ambiguous (Orwell would not approve). This is exemplified in Palin's phrase "team of mavericks"...a TEAM of mavericks does not make sense because "maverick" is defined as "an independent individual who does not go along with a group"!
Looking forward to what everyone has to say on this debate
Senator Biden used a couple of terms that have shown up in some of our readings. For example,
he used the word "fairness" a couple of times in explaining/definding his positions regarding taxes and healthcare. Luntz mentions that "'fairness' has always been a core component of the Democratic lexicon" and that "When you hear the word spoken, you know the party affiliation of the speaker" (207). Perhaps it was this paragraph that made me more attentive to Biden's use of this word.
Biden also used the phrase "ultimate bridge to nowhere," which Orwell might critique as an overused or unnecessary metaphor.
One of my housemates was bothered by the fact that Biden frequently referred to himself in the third person. I don't recall this element in any of our readings, but it made me wonder why he did this. Is there any persuasive/political element to the use of the third person in this sense?
A couple of unclear metaphors appeared on Gov. Palin's side, such as the use of the term "barometer" and "toxic mess on Wall Street."
She also frequently used the phrase "tax relief," which George Lakoff noted was a common conservative/Republican phrase. Having read Lakoff, I was more in tune to the use of this term just as I was for the use of "fairness" on the Democratic side.
I think Orwell would also criticize Palin for using phrases that she did not fully understand...actually, she used several paradoxical phrases that simply did not make sense:
"Clean, green natural gas"
"Environmentally friendly drilling"
And my personal favorite -
"Team of mavericks"
The word "maverick" has been thrown around so much lately that it is becoming ambiguous (Orwell would not approve). This is exemplified in Palin's phrase "team of mavericks"...a TEAM of mavericks does not make sense because "maverick" is defined as "an independent individual who does not go along with a group"!
Looking forward to what everyone has to say on this debate
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
