speaking about the midterm ....can anyone who understand semantics really well help me out. i really didnt understand how to analyze a question on the semantics test. Here was the question:"I think i'm coming down with a cold." How would you analyze that?
ashley hill
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
1/26 Class Minutes
Today in class we basically just discussed the midterm and the format of the midterm. He first told us that the vocab portion of the midterm will be next Monday and it will be only the 100 base words. The actual midterm exam on Wednesday will first have a section on the Toulmin Model where we will have to answer questions about it and compose our own Toulmin sentence. The next portion of the midterm will be questions on semantics like our semantics test earlier in the year. Mr. Lazarow said that there would be about 10-12 of these types of questions. Next we will have a section on The Crucible which will have around 35 questions. The next section is all about Puritan literature. We will be provided quotes from the readins we discussed in class and we will have to identify the title and author, discuss major literary characteristics and do any semantic analysis on the quote that we feel necessary. Last but not least we will have an essay that ties everything we've done so far together. Tomorrow in class we're just going to be reviewing material for the midterm. So I wanted to wish good luck to everyone because I'm sure we're all going to need it.
-Joe
-Joe
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
McCarthy Speech
The other day we discussed the McCarthy speech, and during class I wanted to bring up the repetition of words throughout it. In the beginning of the speech he reuses the word "peace," (speak of peace, anticipate a long peace, hope for peace...) as we discussed in class we discussed "immoralism" and if you look at that one paragraph he uses it three times- twice in one sentence. Finally, another distinct word that he used frequently in the end of his speech was "traitorous." I think that he uses these words in particular because they have strong meanings attached to them and he wants the people listening to come out with these, if not anything else. Of course, he is going to repeat ideas throughout the speech, but I thought it was interesting to see how frequently the same words appeared.
-Kelsey
Thursday, January 15, 2009
January 15
Today in class we finished going over vocab. Next we talked about Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards. This speech was given at Great Awakening meetings. The people going to these meetings already agreed with Edwards, but he was trying to get these people to go out and tell more people about Puritanism. We also discussed how we imagined this speech to be so dramatic and full of energy but actually Edwards was the exact opposite of that. Edwards was calm and told the people that they were sinners and God could just turn his hand over and drop them into hell. This scared the people because they were expecting emotion and entertainment but what they got was someone telling them exactly what was going to happen and in a very calm way.
Vocabulary test tomorrow and poetry reading on Monday 6:30-8:30
-Callie
Vocabulary test tomorrow and poetry reading on Monday 6:30-8:30
-Callie
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
jan 13
Today we starting talking about some extra credit opportunities. One is "Speak Up" tomorrow night and the assumed assignment would be a paper about it. Another opportunity is on Martin Luther King Day on Monday. Interact is holding this event and admission is five dollars. There will be a blood drive in the cafeteria and in the library there will be readings from students, teachers, and members of the community. Extra credit will be rewarded for just showing up and additional points will be given to those you read their own, or another writer's work. We were requested one simple thing: If we do go and chose to read something, do not read Shel Silverstein.
Today we talked about the question we had from act four of The Crucible. The question was: Why does Proctor bawk to signing a confession that will br made public? How does this resolve one of the major conflicts of the play? And how does that make us feel?
First we discussed that Proctor was going to sign the confession but then refused when he was told it was going to be made public. This can be explained by Proctor's concern for the legacy of his name and his public image. Then the question posed was: is it better to die for telling the truth or lying for your life? Proctor shows he has a great sense of pride in himself. Pride and the unwillingness to do something based on one's pride is the root of tragedy. Proctor revels in his pride and wants it to carry on through his name to his children. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins however and leads to the undoing of a tragic hero. This posed the question to whether Proctor suffers from his pride or is pride is a good thing and we should celebrate that he dies from his pride?
Our discussion then branched off to Proctor's reasoning behind choosing to die rather than lying. A point brought up was that, had he signed the confession, he would never be looked at the same and he would have to be punished anyway for committing adultery and he wouldn't want essentially two punishments. The witch trials also collapse with the death of Proctor and he could be seen as sacrificing himself for a greater good which makes us ask the question: is Proctor seen as a Christ figure? The temptation of signing the document could be related to the temptation of Satan. Also, could Proctor be considered an inverted Christ figure, or the exact opposite of a Christ figure?Proctor seemed to have many motivations for not signing the confession because of his multi dimensional character.
The point that Miller wants to make is that it is wrong to accuse people of something they're not. The question that was brought up was: Would you be willing to lie for a greater good? Under what circumstances? The answer to this question is based on personal priorities. Mr. Lazarow then told us a story about the rise in infidelity among spouses. How and when should one tell their spouse that they have been unfaithful? One man suggested to simply not tell her. (Assuming he had chosen to remain faithful from then on and break off whatever he was doing with the other woman) He referred to it as transferring the burden and I think there is some logic in it. Is it better to carry the guilt around to save your spouse from the hardship it would cause him/her? Or should one tell his/her spouse about being unfaithful to get it off your chest only to upset someone else? And this leads us to the question: Can we ever really trust anyone? Perhaps Proctor chose not to sign the document because he was sacrificing himself for a greater cause and thus chosing to not transfer the burden to anyone else.
-Melissa
Today we talked about the question we had from act four of The Crucible. The question was: Why does Proctor bawk to signing a confession that will br made public? How does this resolve one of the major conflicts of the play? And how does that make us feel?
First we discussed that Proctor was going to sign the confession but then refused when he was told it was going to be made public. This can be explained by Proctor's concern for the legacy of his name and his public image. Then the question posed was: is it better to die for telling the truth or lying for your life? Proctor shows he has a great sense of pride in himself. Pride and the unwillingness to do something based on one's pride is the root of tragedy. Proctor revels in his pride and wants it to carry on through his name to his children. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins however and leads to the undoing of a tragic hero. This posed the question to whether Proctor suffers from his pride or is pride is a good thing and we should celebrate that he dies from his pride?
Our discussion then branched off to Proctor's reasoning behind choosing to die rather than lying. A point brought up was that, had he signed the confession, he would never be looked at the same and he would have to be punished anyway for committing adultery and he wouldn't want essentially two punishments. The witch trials also collapse with the death of Proctor and he could be seen as sacrificing himself for a greater good which makes us ask the question: is Proctor seen as a Christ figure? The temptation of signing the document could be related to the temptation of Satan. Also, could Proctor be considered an inverted Christ figure, or the exact opposite of a Christ figure?Proctor seemed to have many motivations for not signing the confession because of his multi dimensional character.
The point that Miller wants to make is that it is wrong to accuse people of something they're not. The question that was brought up was: Would you be willing to lie for a greater good? Under what circumstances? The answer to this question is based on personal priorities. Mr. Lazarow then told us a story about the rise in infidelity among spouses. How and when should one tell their spouse that they have been unfaithful? One man suggested to simply not tell her. (Assuming he had chosen to remain faithful from then on and break off whatever he was doing with the other woman) He referred to it as transferring the burden and I think there is some logic in it. Is it better to carry the guilt around to save your spouse from the hardship it would cause him/her? Or should one tell his/her spouse about being unfaithful to get it off your chest only to upset someone else? And this leads us to the question: Can we ever really trust anyone? Perhaps Proctor chose not to sign the document because he was sacrificing himself for a greater cause and thus chosing to not transfer the burden to anyone else.
-Melissa
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday Thoughts
Today we discussed a variety of wholesome topics. We started out talking about the impact of graphic novels on the literary scene today, and how they are being noticed as a legitimate contribution to American literary history in general. There will be a comic con coming up for those interested as well. We were also told of an extra credit quest, one that consists of reading Watchmen and seeing the movie in March. Watchmen can be found at your local library or bookseller; alternatively the graphic novel is on sale at Amazon.com for the reduced price of 12.00 USD, shipping and handling fees not included.
We also discussed the topic of witch hunts in the modern workplace, especially regarding accusations. The accusation, as proved in the Crucible or the McCarthy era, is often devastating enough to ruin lives even if it is not true. This injustice has to be accommodated; it is an evil that has to be avoided even by the most unlikely of targets. It is a fact of life and something we shake our fists at society for, yet all the same we must take every precaution possible against this witch hunt. We were not able to argue why someone would make false accusations that ruin lives, though undoubtedly that is a topic for another day.
In other news, the puritanism test was canceled and set to be included in the midterm. Yay extra study time.
-Colin
We also discussed the topic of witch hunts in the modern workplace, especially regarding accusations. The accusation, as proved in the Crucible or the McCarthy era, is often devastating enough to ruin lives even if it is not true. This injustice has to be accommodated; it is an evil that has to be avoided even by the most unlikely of targets. It is a fact of life and something we shake our fists at society for, yet all the same we must take every precaution possible against this witch hunt. We were not able to argue why someone would make false accusations that ruin lives, though undoubtedly that is a topic for another day.
In other news, the puritanism test was canceled and set to be included in the midterm. Yay extra study time.
-Colin
Thursday, January 8, 2009
acting vs being
I wanted to continue on the topic of being vs acting. Everyone made really good points and it was really hard to decide how I actually felt. I finally came up with this; the majority of people do not act to deceive, but they act on what they know will be accepted. If they see someone behaving a certain way they will be more likely to behave that way, especially if they are young. Little kids change their behaviors so frequently it's hard to keep up, and I hardly think these young innocent children are trying to be deceptive. I agree with Olivia that it is impossible to tell whether or not someone is acting or actually being (which brings up the question what is actually being?) -- because half the time the people you're talking to don't even know if they are being "real" or not. I feel that people "act" the most when they are meeting new people. They want to establish common grounds with that new person so they smile a lot and agree with basically everything the other is saying - then when they get to know each other things start to change and it leaves a question of who is this person really? And honestly I don't think anyone can ever really KNOW another person, because no matter how real they seem there is no way to distinguish a difference between who they appear to be and who they really are. And I also agree with Ashley that "being" is the thoughts that go on inside your head, because you are not consciously thinking about them, they just come to you. What you say is acting because you are consciously choosing which thoughts you make public because those are the ones that will be accepted and which thoughts you keep to yourself.
-Sammi
-Sammi
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
January 6 Minutes
Today in class we chose our topics for the paper on The Crucible, which is due on Jan. 21. The paper should be roughly three pages and should include proper heading, title (centered, no underline/italics), and MLA citation (parenthetical, no footnotes, etc). Some other requirements are: a strong thesis statement in the introduction, good topic sentences and transitions between paragraphs, supporting details, explanation for any external sources, and a conclusion that does not repeat previously mentioned ideas (should answer the question ‘So what?’ or ‘Why should I care?’). The order in which the paper is written is not confined, as long as it makes logical sense to the reader.
We then discussed the question (During the attempt to get Mary Warren to testify, Proctor says "They're all marvelous pretenders." Why, when asked to do so, is Mary Warren incapable of pretending to faint? She says that there is something lacking. What is lacking? What is the difference between acting and being?) from Act Three of the play. What Mary Warren was lacking that made her unable to pretend to be fainting when asked to do so during court was mainly public support. Because she was by herself and put on the spot, it was hard for her to react to the command. The fact that she was being watched also changes things. This is essentially the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the concept being that any occurrence observed is changed by being observed. Psychologically speaking, her behaviors can be explained by mob mentality, which refers to unique behavioral characteristics that emerge when people are in large groups. Basically, people are willing to go with the mob and do things that they normally would not/unable to do(i.e. pep rally, football games, etc).
We also talked about the emotional suppression in the Puritan society as a possible cause for the need of an outlet for the teenage girls (although technically there was no term defining the transition between childhood and adulthood). Since the girls were considered as children, they were essentially powerless when it comes to any matters. The process of implicating others renders the powerless the powers that they innately desired. This also gives them the chance to do things that are sanctioned and allows the release of their frustration.
As for the connection between acting and being, we said that sometimes if one does something frequently enough, one may very well be able to convince oneself to believe in it – whether it is consciously or subconsciously.
Julie W
We then discussed the question (During the attempt to get Mary Warren to testify, Proctor says "They're all marvelous pretenders." Why, when asked to do so, is Mary Warren incapable of pretending to faint? She says that there is something lacking. What is lacking? What is the difference between acting and being?) from Act Three of the play. What Mary Warren was lacking that made her unable to pretend to be fainting when asked to do so during court was mainly public support. Because she was by herself and put on the spot, it was hard for her to react to the command. The fact that she was being watched also changes things. This is essentially the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the concept being that any occurrence observed is changed by being observed. Psychologically speaking, her behaviors can be explained by mob mentality, which refers to unique behavioral characteristics that emerge when people are in large groups. Basically, people are willing to go with the mob and do things that they normally would not/unable to do(i.e. pep rally, football games, etc).
We also talked about the emotional suppression in the Puritan society as a possible cause for the need of an outlet for the teenage girls (although technically there was no term defining the transition between childhood and adulthood). Since the girls were considered as children, they were essentially powerless when it comes to any matters. The process of implicating others renders the powerless the powers that they innately desired. This also gives them the chance to do things that are sanctioned and allows the release of their frustration.
As for the connection between acting and being, we said that sometimes if one does something frequently enough, one may very well be able to convince oneself to believe in it – whether it is consciously or subconsciously.
Julie W
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Shell or the Soul?
Today it was discussed how most Puritans have a seemingly righteous outward shell, while internally they are much more flawed. I cannot help but notice that many in today's world are just like this. The darker fundamental principles that guide the Puritans seem to have changed little in 300-400 years. Do you think that people in school are still governed by their shells and not themselves? Have we learned to accept people for their flaws? Often we consider ourselves to be so far beyond the Puritans due to our intellectualism and progressive tendencies, but while the environment in which our civilizations live are completely different, are we all that different as people? Certainly proper Puritan ideals conflict with how many of them actually were, making them seem hypocritical, but how often to we conflict with our own ideals?
Michael Q
Michael Q
January 5
Today we discussed the first two questions about The Crucible. The first question was: Why do Abigail and Tituba both confess when they both have claimed to be innocent? Why do they implicate others?
We determined that this can be answered in two parts. The first part of the answer is self-preservation and the second part of the answer is power. Initially, they confess to avoid the most severe punishments and then they implicate others to deflect the attention to others. If, after the first few implications, they had stopped it would have been mostly an act of self-preservation. However, they continue to implicate others even after it seems that they have been saved. This suggests that the two were motivated by the power that they had while they accused others. It was discussed that this power was treasured by Tituba and Abigail because of their positions in the Puritan Society. Finally, we explored why the initial accusations were accepted. We decided that it was due to names that were announced- they were the names that people wanted to hear and wanted to believe were witches.
The second question was: How honest is Proctor really? There were two sides to this question. It seemed that initially most people believed that John Proctor was honest despite the lies he had made in the past, however another view- that Proctor was actually dishonest to both himself and others- seemed to gain most support. John Proctor deliberately omits information, for example Proctor conveniently forgets to mention that he was alone with Abigail when talking with Elizabeth. He also does not come forward with information when he believes that people were being falsely accused. Even when he tells the truth it is only when it is the last possible option. This is why he only confesses to having an affair with Abigail when he was caught and admitted it to the town only when his wife was accused of witchcraft. Proctor only came forward with the truth when it was too late.
We also discussed the possibility that John Proctor was a tragic hero whose flaw was his dishonesty and which actually led to the witch hunt and that the only truthful character was Elizabeth.
Kelsey
We determined that this can be answered in two parts. The first part of the answer is self-preservation and the second part of the answer is power. Initially, they confess to avoid the most severe punishments and then they implicate others to deflect the attention to others. If, after the first few implications, they had stopped it would have been mostly an act of self-preservation. However, they continue to implicate others even after it seems that they have been saved. This suggests that the two were motivated by the power that they had while they accused others. It was discussed that this power was treasured by Tituba and Abigail because of their positions in the Puritan Society. Finally, we explored why the initial accusations were accepted. We decided that it was due to names that were announced- they were the names that people wanted to hear and wanted to believe were witches.
The second question was: How honest is Proctor really? There were two sides to this question. It seemed that initially most people believed that John Proctor was honest despite the lies he had made in the past, however another view- that Proctor was actually dishonest to both himself and others- seemed to gain most support. John Proctor deliberately omits information, for example Proctor conveniently forgets to mention that he was alone with Abigail when talking with Elizabeth. He also does not come forward with information when he believes that people were being falsely accused. Even when he tells the truth it is only when it is the last possible option. This is why he only confesses to having an affair with Abigail when he was caught and admitted it to the town only when his wife was accused of witchcraft. Proctor only came forward with the truth when it was too late.
We also discussed the possibility that John Proctor was a tragic hero whose flaw was his dishonesty and which actually led to the witch hunt and that the only truthful character was Elizabeth.
Kelsey
Friday, January 2, 2009
January 2, 2009
Today in class next weeks vocabulary set was handed out, we discovered that there will be a test on the entire puritan unit either Friday of next week or Monday of the next week, and we answered four questions about The Crucible. The following questions are going to be the topics of discussion on Monday:
1. Act 1: Why does Abigail and then Tituba both confess to witchcraft when they first claimed their innocence? Why do they then implicate others?
2. Act 2: John Proctor "Because it speaks deceit, and I am honest." How honest is Proctor really?
3. Act 3: During the attempt to get Mary Warren to testify, Proctor says "They're all marvelous pretenders." Why, when asked to do so, is Mary Warren incapable of pretending to faint? She says that there is something lacking. What is lacking? Where can/should we draw the line between acting and being?
4. Act 4: Why does Proctor balk at signing his name to what he knows will be seen as a public confession? How does this action of not signing the paper conclude or dissolve one of the main dramas of the play?
These questions should be answered with references from the text and your own opinions.
- Jen
1. Act 1: Why does Abigail and then Tituba both confess to witchcraft when they first claimed their innocence? Why do they then implicate others?
2. Act 2: John Proctor "Because it speaks deceit, and I am honest." How honest is Proctor really?
3. Act 3: During the attempt to get Mary Warren to testify, Proctor says "They're all marvelous pretenders." Why, when asked to do so, is Mary Warren incapable of pretending to faint? She says that there is something lacking. What is lacking? Where can/should we draw the line between acting and being?
4. Act 4: Why does Proctor balk at signing his name to what he knows will be seen as a public confession? How does this action of not signing the paper conclude or dissolve one of the main dramas of the play?
These questions should be answered with references from the text and your own opinions.
- Jen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)