Analyze the following statements, based upon your understanding of semantics. Use your knowledge of Hayakawa, E-Prime, common propaganda techniques, etc. You may post your analyses here--but be prepared to discuss them in class as well. This is a preparatory exercise for the Semantics Unit final test.
1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."
2. “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)
3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.
4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.
5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I must say that these sentences serve as a playing field for semanticists.
1.) We know that environmental crimes consist of violating laws used to protect the environment, such as polluting the land, water, and air. Organized crimes consist of unlawful activities committed by an association. Finally, the use of drugs is an abuse of illegal substances.
The connotation tied in with the word "criminal" is a negative one. Generally, a criminal is one who is guilty of crime. Thus if criminals commit environmental, organized, and drug abuse crimes, which are all punishable in the eyes of the law, what makes one criminal more decent than the other?
Different people have different definitions of good and bad, defined upon what an individual has done in their past to classify them in those categories. Thus, this passage is percieved differently by all; it is loaded with bias, but then again, everything is. It compells everyone takes a different impression about environmentalist criminals versus organized criminals and drug abusers.
2.) When translated into E-Prime, this passage appears as:
"The streets of our country appear as in turmoil. The universities contain seemingly rebellious and riotous students. Communists appear as if they seek to destroy the country. Russia's might appears threatening, and the Republic appears as if in danger. Yes--danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive."
By removing the forms of the verb "to be," the reader's perceptions have become clearer. Rather than stating that the streets are in turmoil (as an absolute), it is good to make note that this is merely Hitler's view of the current situation.
Hitler also effectively utilizes "Glittering Generality" with his referencing to the great Republic. He also blames the Communisists for the uproar. Yet, what are Communists? One is not a Communist; rather, he or she embodies or espouses Communist ideals. In fact, in this way, Hitler ties in a negative connotation with the word "Communism," and somewhat triggers Name Calling. From now on, his enemies will be referenced as Communists.
3.) The first thing that struck me here was the sense of authority emitted from the passage: the final word was given by the chief cartographer, himself. This immediately establishes a warrant (GASCAP) with the audience.
Secondly: What is the definition of "falsified"? Is it when something is proven 100% wrong (which is impossible, because everything is percieved differently, depending on the person)? Or is "falsified" applicable when only a minute part of idea at hand is proven to be wrong?
Thirdly: How can the chief cartographer be SURE that alterations of the map were deliberate? Maybe geography has evolved over these past 50 years. Maybe cartographers in the present day have different perceptive abilities than those of 50 years ago. Such thinking is surely a stretch, yet anything is possible in the field of semantics. How can we proclaim anything absolutely?
Lastly: The final sentence includes an absolute, or a form of the verb "to be." Transpose it into E-Prime and we have: "To thwart military and intelligence operations seems the apparant purpose." Once again, how can we be so sure that this is what the map makers had in mind? This observation is just an observation; it is something that seems apparant to the writer and possibly not to certain members of the audience. Even the phrase, "apparant purpose" seems to be somewhat of a qualifier, producing a margin of error. An even more absolute form of the sentence would be as follows: "The purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations."
4.) Angela may think that Tabby, Cinders, and Fluff are cats. Yet Sue may think them to be some other sort of creature because of her past intensional and extensional experiences. Tabby's auburn fur could possibly remind Sue of an animal she saw scurrying in the forest a few days earlier.
If there is such a thing as a mute cat that is unable to meow, does that make it any less of a feline?
Tigers, leopards, jaguars, and lions are also scientifically classified as cats. They are unable to meow. Thus, are they incorrectly grouped in the feline family?
5.) Trail mix is usually associated with a positive connotation; it is thought to be a healthy snack. Comedian Roseanne Barr is poking fun at the idea that even foods are taken for granted if associated with a good name. Since trail mis generally entails "Antioxidants, Essential Oils & All-Natural Organic Nutrients In One Delicious Raw Snack," anything classified by that name would be generalized as containing the same components.
These are all of the observations that I was able to produce. I can't wait to see what all of you have to say as well. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
I apologize, but as I was re-reading my text, I realized the spelling errors and typos. I was using the keyboard vigorously and got excited at some points. Very sorry!
(Sam Maliha)
1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."
First off, the whole definition of environmental crimes is up for debate, and with that the question of whether a crime against an intangible thing is possible? What is the”environment”, and what constitutes a crime towards it. It could be argued that cutting down trees is a crime because it is causing deforestation and hurting the ecosystem. The flip side is that along with obtaining valuable resources, it is opening up room for other plants and animals to live and grow, as well as different types of trees. The second issue with this statement is that it generalizes that all people who use drugs and participate in an organized crime are “bad”. Along with the definition of bad being debatable, there is the matter of over generalization. There are myriad situations where perfectly decent people get caught up in crime and drugs. This is polarized by the supposed “decent” people committing “bad things”. What makes a person good and bad, and why are decent people doing bad things? Do their intentions or misguided visions for a better world or benefit cancel out their bad deeds? According to this statement, they do.
2.“The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)
Here is a prime example of a brilliant public speaker using propaganda to achieve his own ends. Hitler seeks to control Europe and build an empire, and sees the hurt and angry Germany as his tool to achieve his goals. The misguided and damaged German people rally behind this leader who identifies a tangible threat that they can rally against, and promises to lead them through the tribulations necessary to fix Germany.
3.
3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.
It seems to me that the use of “apparent” purpose to explain this in fact even more clouds the reason behind this “falsification”, if it can be called that. By admitting to changing maps and then not clearly stating why, there is no reason to believe that any current maps are accurate. What can be considered accurate if all the maps have been changed in the first place?
4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.
Statement one establishes that cats are creatures and they meow. It does not state that all cats meow, and that other creatures that meow are not cats. The second statement establishes that Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. The third statement however, is broken in a sense. Nowhere did it previously state that all cats meow, and the statement that the three are cats cannot be a bridge to the conclusion that all three meow. I am concluding that this would require a prerequisite statement establishing that all cats meow if the final statement is to be true.
4.
5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)
This statement establishes a clear warrant with the audience: That nutritional is good, and that Trail Mix is nutritional. Therefore, anything classified as Trail Mix should be good by definition. But there lacks a definition for Trail Mix. Here, it includes a ratio of candy that would be unheard of in any nutritional variation of Trail Mix.
(Steve Szumski)
Post a Comment