Education

Today in class we talked about education, and whether high school should be general or focused on what you want to do with your future. I meant to say the following during class but I didnt have time. I was talking to a boy who was visiting the U.S. from Germany. He had graduated from a high school similar to ours, but what he did afterwards was different from what most of us plan on doing. The students that graduated from that high school do not go straight to college but they do apprenticeships. They take a year to work in the real world and see what they might like to do with their lives. I think this is a great idea because if you apprentice at a job that you love then you know that the four years you spend at college will be directing you towards a job that you will enjoy. I think this approach would work better than the American way, because many American students waste time during their college years before deciding on a major or lose credits when they realize they should switch majors. Worse, they may feel trapped in a particular career that they find they don't like after they've wasted the time and money on four years of college.

--Callie

Affective Communication Reading

I have been meaning to blog about one of the topics brought up in our reading the other day. Under the title "What Literature is For" two conclusions are drawn: affective elements are of the utmost importance in all literary writing and the second conclusion is when we say that a given piece of writing is true we do not mean "scientifically true."

The reading then goes on to discuss the meaning of the word "true." I thought about this and think that there can never be a standard truth because everyone comes from a different perspective and therefore would accept and dismiss different symbols. If we cannot agree on a standard set of symbols then there is no way to even make a statement.

Since symbols come from outside of us, we have no direct connection with language. This point is argued in the movie dark star when a bomb needs to be reasoned with to stop from detonating. Here is the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI&feature=related

-Kelsey W.

This Generation's Amorphous Language

It would seem that the evolutionary language we call english is changing... as always. The current generation, however, is pumping steroids into this process. Many ideals such as youth rebellion, secrecy, necessity, and speed are now being wrapped around communication among youths. A simple analysis of todays communication and language reveals a lot of change in a rather short amount of time.

One of the most broad, and obvious, changes is the sudden rise in words such as LOL and BRB. These new symbols are brought about by not only a need for them but also a social acceptance of their use and the social cohesion that comes with it. Today information exchange is light speed and accessible from virtually anywhere. Because of new, fast methods of communication such as texting and instant messaging require quick responses, phrases that would take a long time to type or even say are being replaced by abbreviations and are essentially becoming 1 short word. The same is true for words and shorter phonetic spellings. Words such as you and your are becoming u and ur. Text combinations of symbols are also developing much different meaning than they would have if you were to say them out. For example the statement I <3 chocolate would translate to "I love chocalate" if one were to see it in text but if one were to say it out, "I less than three chocolate" one would probably get a lot of strange looks. Because the new rapid exchange of information is so tied in to this generation, this generation has modified the language in extreme ways. Now instead of "Hello, who are you with today?", one would say "Hi, who r u w/ 2day?"

Another major shift in communication arrives out of rebellion, secrecy and a necessity for both. This new skew on the english language is a little less broad in its social effect but has definately influenced it as a whole. The name for this new sub-dialect is 1337. If you pronounced that one three three seven than you probably don't know what it is. 1337 is actually pronounced "Leet". It is a form of writing english words in as many numbers and symbols as possible so that the numbers and symbols resemble the letters that they are replacing. 1337 originally was used on online bulletin boards in the eighties but didn't really hit the mainstream until recently. Then as well as now the purpose was to evade text filters and administrators online. This way people could communicate secretly with an very easy to learn language. Like english, 1337 is also dynamically changing but at a much faster rate. The difference you may find between 1337 one year and 1337 a year later may be equivalent to the difference found in the english spoken at one time and the english spoken 10-20 years later. Within 20 years the term went from Elite to Eleet to 31337 to 1337. Leetspeak such as 0\/\//\/, refering to the domination of something, has changed to []D\/\//\/ or pwn. This particular shift actually came about by mistakingly hitting the 'p' key on the keyboard instead of the 'o' key. This shift reflect the chaotic morphology of 1337. 1337 has developed its own grammatical morphology such as adding the suffix -xor and introduced new words such as n00b to society. The new abreviations such as LOL and rly discussed above are considered products of 1337.
15|\|'7 17 (R4Z'/ |-|0\/\/ d1PhPh3R3|\|7L'/ 0|\|3 (4|\| 5'//\/\B0L1Z3 7|-|3 3|\|9L15|-| L4|\|9U493?!1!!1!1!
Translates to:
isn't it crazy how differently one can symbolize the english language?!

Pride

Today the topic of pride in Moorestown came up at the end of class and we didn't get much time to discuss it. Personally, I feel that once Money Magazine declared Moorestown the "Number One Town in America," pride skyrocketed. Everyone was proud to be from the best town in America. But since then things have changed and I think we are now about 80th on the list. I feel that people are less proud because of what has happened in our school such as incidents with drugs and other things on our school's record and also we feel less proud because of how other people stereotype our school. Jen brought up the point that if you go somewhere and say you're from Moorestown you most likely receive a dirty look or some other sign of disapproval. People generally view kids from Moorestown as rich and snobby which is not true for the entire population of Moorestown High Schoool. So, the question being asked is, are we proud to live in Moorestown?

Another thing I found interesting was that we really have no one symbol that unifies us as a whole and we focus mostly on competition. I had never thought of that before and when Laz pointed that out today I realized that its true. But is that a good or a bad thing?

-Melissa

Rituals

I had never really thought about rituals in that way before and I was wondering if anyone had any input on today's class. I realized at my cross country meet today that our ritual (a team cheer on the start line) had no real significance. The words in the cheer had been altered over the years and the original story behind the cheer had no meaning to anyone still left on the team but, even so, we still say it before every race. I think that even though we don't understand the cheer because it is a tradition it brings about feeling of team pride and we feel like we shouldn't change it.

-Kelsey

If any of you want to read more into this...

I really recommend Steven Pinker's books, primarily The Stuff of Thought which I coincidentally started reading a few weeks ago. Pinker is very well respected in his field, and has written extensively on linguistics. Semantics, what we are essentially studying, is a subdivision of linguistics. I find that reading more into general linguistics aids in understanding semantics. In case you're worried about difficulty in reading Stuff of Thought, Pinker writes very accessibly, so the grasping of his ideas isn't blocked by any complicated jargon.

The Toulmin method in tonight's debate

The vice presidential debate is currently underway on all of the major news networks, and the most obvious connection to class topics I could see right away was the way in which the candidates debated - sometimes according to the Toulmin method, often times not. I'm not going to say who was right or wrong or inject my opinion of policy, but I think it's pretty clear the two types of arguing, so far, are pretty different. For those who are watching/have watched the debate, what do you think of each candidates style and techniques? Who do you see as more effective in convincing the American public? Do you see warrants, backings, rebuttals, or any other elements besides a claim and support in their arguments? I generally see Palin as a more emotional arguer, while Biden has so far employed the use of facts and statistics (correct facts, I presume). Your thoughts?

-Colin

There's No Escaping the Influece

After watching the video, "The Merchants of Cool" in class, we talked about the people who would like to think that they are not influenced by advertising, current trends, or the latest fashions. The fact is, advertising these days is so ubiquitous, no one can escape its power entirely. Those who say they are not affected or belive they are not naive enough to give in to these big greedy corporations do not realize how much they really are impacted.

The Devil Wears Prada is a movie, based on the book, about a young aspiring journalist in New York City who knows nothing about the fashion industry, but gets a job as the assistant to Miranda Priestly, the ruthless editor of a major fashion magazine. This clip, in particular, is an example of what we have talked about over the past couple of days: the idea that major corporations and brands, determine how we act, what we wear, and who we are, and no matter how hard we try to ignore them no one is immune. When the main character, Andy, laughs over how much thought is being put into assembling an outfit for a photoshoot, the editor, Miranda, explains to her that even though she may be trying to show the world that she "takes herself to seriously to care about what she puts on her back" by wearing a "lumpy blue sweater" to work, that sweater was chosen for her by the people in that room.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/13046/the-devil-wears-prada-cerulean-sweater

Julie S.

I thought our discussion on symbolism today was very interesting, but I had a question and was wondering what everyone thinks.

If practically every thing can be interpreted as a symbol (or bears a symbolic meaning), and our own perceptions of each vary dramatically, then is Hayakawa implying - or can we infer - that there is no absolute 'truth' or 'reality'?
And if so, then what do we call the things in which we believe or live?


Julie W

What tastes of yours aren't predominantly influenced by the massive advertising machine?

I recall this question being asked in class and thought it would be best to adapt online. More time may allow for some more answers. I personally would say that most my film tastes are out of touch with what the advertising machine advocates. I rarely see new films, and only if it receives good reviews. Really most films that I see are classics. Films such as those by Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, (Mr. Lazarow's favorite) Akira Kurasawa, Truffaut, Chaplin, Tati, etc. Talking with other kids, I find that most know their Hitchcock and Coppola but haven't the slightest idea who the mentioned filmmakers are. Filmmakers that are just as important, and influential. I suppose a film like The Seventh Seal would be considered uncool and boring by a media. I suspect this is because the greatest profits wouldn't arise from challenging, meditative films. The fact that these films are even out on DVD is because a small group of enthusiasts buy them at expensive prices ($30-$40 for a Criterion disc).

So what tastes of yours, do you feel aren't predominantly influenced by the massive advertising machine?