Christine M Henry

Advance Composition

April 9, 2007

1 page

“I’m sorry I stepped on your cat.

I’m sorry the cat got stepped on.

The cat looks upset.

Why was the cat under my foot?

Can’t the damn animal watch where it’s going?

You shouldn’t have let the cat in the room.” (The Language War, p. 24)

This quote presents several interesting scenarios. The point of these series of statements is to demonstrate the forms that an apology can take.

The first line may be genuine. It acknowledges the action/wrongdoing, “stepping on”. It sort of acknowledges the hurt party, “the cat” (although the apology is directed at the owner). And it might be assumed that the person making the apology needs to be forgiven, but you really cannot be sure.

The second line isn’t as genuine, or at least isn’t as clear. It does everything the first line does, except, acknowledge that the speaker is the wrongdoer.

The third line isn’t an apology at all. All it does is state a fact. The emotional state of the cat.

The forth line starts to place the blame on the cat. By trying to make it seem like the cat placed itself under the foot.
The fifth line places all the blame on the cat, and don’t mention the action at all.

And the sixth line places all of the blame onto the owner of the cat.

Oh My...

Response to Lakoff
One of the many sections in Language War that I really liked was on “The Stories That Make The News.” I was able to understand how we, as people, put entertainment before importance and urgency. We would rather hear about Anna Nicole and her baby drama, then to hear about our soldiers who are over there dying for this country. Yes it is true that many people don’t agree with the war and yes the war has been going on for a long time now. However, the bottom line is that anytime people are dying daily and anytime there is a severe debate like the war or anything else on that level that should be number one. But instead of that being number one we are watching Judge Judy and then at the bottom of the screen there is a line talking about the war or decisions made by Congress.
Another section I liked was “Apologies As Language Politics.” According to Lakoff, “In making an apology, the maker (1) acknowledges wrongdoing; (2) acknowledges that the addressee is the wronged party; (3) admits needing something (forgiveness) from the addressee to make things right again.” If one were to go by this definition of an apology it would be safe to say that it is very rare for people to apologize and actually mean it. An apology today is some one saying, “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”. There is no meaning in this! Why is the person apologizing? In my opinion, apologies today have become routine and therefore no longer mean anything. It’s just become a standard way especially for women. A lot of the time women apologize for things that don’t even really need an apology but it’s a learned behavior.
Next we have “Linguistic Prescriptivism”. This section was all about language and I definitely agree that language is constantly changing. I also believe that it is a good thing. In class we talked about ebonics being accepted in schools. I have to say that I think that’s okay to a certain extent. I am okay with ebonics being used in elementary school. At that point I feel that trying to hear the students is more important than how they are saying whatever it is that they are saying. I do believe that ebonics should not be accepted in high school or college at all. I feel that at this point people should be speaking proper English.
These are just my opinions about Lakoff and the text and how I took them.

"How do you know that?" . . . "It's common sense!"

I wrote a list of topics we covered in class. It was difficult to pick one that interested me so much, I would want to write a 10 page paper about it. I am still thinking of ideas, but for now, what most interests me is common sense. Luckily, this topic is covered by Lakoff and so I will use this post as a starting point for exploring my ideas.

I have always used common sense to make my decisions and to decide right from wrong. Lakoff writes that “We think of ‘common sense’ itself as based on reality and our own down-to-earth, theory-free, hardheaded observations of that reality.” I completely agree, but what makes it common sense is that many other people think the same way.

What intrigues me is who decides what common sense is. How do so many people decide to believe in the same thing? What makes that idea right and why should people follow? How is common sense changing and why are things that were not acceptable before, acceptable now?

Lakoff also writes that people who have views other than the ones of common sense, must justify their positions, while those who use common sense don’t need any validation. I can see how this is true. While I don’t need any explanation for having manners (“Please can I have that?”), I expect those who don’t to have some excuse or at least to say ‘sorry’ (“Give that to me.” --- “What?”).

It is easy to see the change in common sense when using scientific examples. One thing Lakoff writes is “That a woman played an active role in determining her child’s genetic characteristics would have seemed equally absurd: it was ‘obvious’ that she was only the vessel that contained the homunculus donated by the father, which came complete with all heritable traits.” We now commonly know that it is both the mother and father who contribute to the traits of their offspring, thanks to science.

In social situations, there is usually no tangible proof for change. It used to be common sense for a man to be chivalrous. To open a door for a woman, or simply act like a gentleman was just done, but now it is common sense that a woman is independent and is perfectly capable of opening a door herself. Also, men tend to act more like burping/farting men, rather then well-behaved men.

The above example is something that is still in the changing phase because many women still want to be swept of their feet, yet want to be seen as independent, which put men in a difficult situation; however, that’s another topic. It is also an example of how we hold on to old common sense. Lakoff writes “Change always entails struggle, often as now taking the form of a ‘language war,’ because we defend old frames, and create new ones, through language.”

Yeah… the more I explore common sense, the more I want to use it for my final research paper.

Wow...

So my first thoughts reading Lakoff was I'd rather be reading Ramage. However, I have to say that there are a lot of god points in The Language War. One part I liked was The Stories that make the news. We talked about that in class, specifically about Anna Nicole and how everyone is always looking for the next best thing. Starting off with this definately grabbed my attention, especially after that dry introduction. As I was reading I began to think more and more about the paper we just wrote and how if I had read that introduction beforehand, maybe my paper would look better. J/k, my paper is...my paper. I also liked when Lakoff talks about apologies and it made me think about how much people really mean it when they apologies. I thought about whether or not I really mean it when I apologize. To be honest, a lot of the time I apologize because I'm supposed to so whether or not I feel sorry doesn't matter because apologizing is what's suppose to be done.
"Neutrality is advantageous only if it can be exploited and extended into an effective means of persuasion." Thankyou Lakoff for making me regret, already, having to read this book. I'm going to leave it at that.

Yeah...

So I've kind of come to a conclusion about the topics of this course and it has helped me understand that I will only ever slightly understand anything we talk about and that it's Okay.

Everything we've read is air. Not concrete or solid-- nothing easy to grasp. Just floating thoughts that can cause a frustrated break down unless we somehow make sense of it- even if the sense is a bit off-center.

Not every concept of every reading results in the above, but I think you'll agree that a lot of it does.

That is what ties this course together-- the theme is confusion based on the question 'how' and the number of possible opinions on each topic.

I came to this conclusion while reading Lakoff's ideas about the words we use to define male and female. This whole language thing is another mix of who and why and how, but never exact-- just like persuasion and rhetoric and opinion. It's all a bunch of ideas because these are topics that allow for many ideas, which isn't a bad thing, but a thing that I have to accept. You cannot tell me 1 + 2 = 3 because guess what... in this class there are a million different ways to get to three and while were on the topic, who decided to create these numbers and what makes three the answer?

I'm not complaining, though it may sound that way. It's just a WoNdErFuL conclusion!

Lakoff

First off we go on Spring Break to clear our heads and I don't know about everyone else, but im still pretty much burned out!

Other then that, I would have to say that I actually understood what Lakoff was saying here! I could actually follow along with his statements!

One phrase I really liked was on page 49. "We need our frames and conventional assumptions. These form the glue that holds cultures together and allows individuals within those cultures to feel like competent members of a cohesive community" Upon reading this statement, I understood exactly was Lakoff was saying. Without our frames and conventional assumptions, we would not be competent members of a community.

Well that is all for now....I am looking forward to handing in our paper(FINALLY) and for our class discussion!!!

No time for a witty title, but I think I'm liking this Lakoff stuff.

Not only is it easier to read than Ramage, but the tangents are far less wild are much easier to follow. Simply put, I think I'm really going to enjoy reading this text/book/whatever.

I'm totally burnt out from working on my paper--which I have devoted many, many, hours to (and then some!) and probably will never feel as though my work on it is complete--but reading Lakoff was quite interesting. At times I felt as though I lost track of what she was saying, but I caught back up nicely.

Points I especially found interesting:
The entire section about the apology and even the un-apology.
The idea of "performative" expressions (I very certain I grasped the concept.)
The section about stories that make the news (which reminded me a lot of this Anna Nicole Smith/The Croc Hunter business that certain news organizations cling to like ticks.)

And other stuff, but I'm tired, and am too out of it to page through to find all the stuff I highlighted so I can remember what I read.

Still, I'm quite interested in seeing where all this conversation leads in class tomorrow.

G'nite! (because shouting "G'nite!" is traditional where I come from... well, not really. Sleep deprivation/exhaustion + doing stuff = lameness)

I'll just stop here.

First PDog, now cats . . . anyone else seeing a trend here?

Animal examples aside, I was most interested in the section about apologies in politics. When I read Lakoff’s apology list, I was taken aback a little.

South Africa: “Hey, sorry about that whole apartheid thing . . . my bad”

I couldn't help but think of all the time's I've used the phrase "sorry doesn't cut it" in my life. I've said it to my little sister after she's created "make-up soup" in the bathroom sink. I've said it to boyfriends (for too many reasons to even attempt counting).

Unless our president has made make-up soup or stayed out too late without calling, I once again say that "sorry doesn't cut it". What if President Bush, when answering for the massive death tolls in the Middle East, simply responded with "oops"? Maybe this is just a positive outlet for language manipulation. I am a consumer demanding all apologies from politicians, spokesman, and officials to sound heart-felt . . . even if it is written by someone's hired advisor. Go ahead, oh mighty politician, bribe me with fancy words and elegant clauses . . . and try not to choke on a pretzel while you're doing so.

My Head Hurts

.. That's what I said.

At least it's Spring!

the persuaders and the persuaded

Even before seeing the documentary "the Persuaders," I had already unconsciously grouped society, simply, into two parts-the persuaders and the persuaded. I knew of an industry whose breath of life existed only while the consumer had a pair of healthy lungs, breathing in desire and puffing out cash.

The advertisement industry, for me, plays upon my personality polar opposites. On the one hand, I have always been drawn to the power of words. With words, ad agencies create worlds for us that are palatable. We hear a string of words in a certain order and we salivate. The key to selling is to create a want, not a need, and today's advertisers know the exact combination to the locks on consumers' desires and wallets. On the other hand, when misused, the power of words can be lethal. Can ethics take part in "persuading," or is the fundamental core of persuasion only self-serving?

I think perhaps more frustrating than realizing we are manipulated everyday into buying a certain car, voting for a certain candidate, or adopting a certain ideal, is that there is nothing to stop the bombardment, the "clutter." There is no way to break through the clutter, all you can do is add to it, and hope that you're noticed. It's like a wall glued over with hundreds of years of newspapers, plastered one on top of the other; it's impossible to know what lies underneath the paper thin top layer.

But why do those gears grind in that direction? Why is the system set up to bury us? I don't think it was ever intended that we, as Americans, be caught in the metal crunch of the persuader machinery. I do think, however, that as human beings, we all have a tendency to regress into a survival state; it's either them or me. We manipulate others everyday, whether we choose to recognize this human characteristic or not. Of course human nature is going to govern what we do-including our business and political affairs. And unfortunately, part of human nature is to persuade others of what "I" think is right, and what "I" think should be done-my personal zeal transferred onto others. It is only human nature to manipulate for personal gain, so why, as a public community, do our feathers ruffle when light is shed behind the scenes of the advertising industry? The industry is only mirroring the functions of society. If it goes against those social norms set before it, how can it survive?

I'm sorry I stepped on your cat

First, an observation- Lakoff enjoys using parenthesis. It slightly annoys me because usually a reader ignores parenthesis because the information is second and usually not all that important; however, Lakeoff puts useful information in them and I feel like I’m taking a break from the real reading every time I stop to read the crap in the parenthesis, even though it’s not really crap. Sorry for my rant. Yes, sorry :-)

Anyway, yet again we dive into a seemingly simple subject and dissect it. This time, however, I enjoy the topic and so I’m interested in hearing what people who have studied language think of it and how they analyze it. As a writing major, language is important to me, but so far it seems that Lakoff is analyzing words and the potential meanings, which is language, yes, but to me language is so much more universal. Language is what we create to project meaning, to understand, and to communicate.

There are so many cultures that use language differently, not only the obvious totally different language, but the way that they communicate (different manors and acceptable ways of saying things). And as far as language vs. reality, like I said, language is sooo broad—it contains truth and fiction and it’s like comparing deserts to pumpkin pie. You can say fiction is my favorite language, but saying language is a problem because it’s not all truth doesn’t make much sense. I suppose I’ll just have to try and think of language a little differently/more narrow for now so I’m not constantly disagreeing with the book—it won’t be too hard. :-)

It’s late and I’m kind of tired and still wound from break, but I think I make some sense, right?

p.s. I heart emoticons!

Information Overload

This paper is a swamp and I can't seem to distinguish one paragraph from the next. Do you know how it is when you just have so much to say it's like a big cloud above your head and each individual concept is mixing and blending and overlapping the others so it's just one blob and try as you might, you can not diffuse the parts into managable shapes? I've a blob so far, oh yeah, going places fast.

I hope everyone else is fairing better than I. (And that they enjoyed the mini blizzard, cheers to winter for one last kick)

Course Calendar Update

Here's an updated course calendar for the week after spring break:

Tuesday 3/20:

• Workshop. This will be the final workshop of for the second paper.

Thursday 3/22:

• Paper #2 Due.
• Read: Lakoff, The Language War, "Introduction" & "Language: The Power We Love to Hate," pp. 1-41

I will give you a fully updated calendar after break.

what it must have been like

I have a great uncle who lives in Albany, NY. He spent his whole life in that state, except for when he was in the army or vacationing with his wife to Greece, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, and probably a dozen others I'm not aware of. Uncle Phil is an artist, too. He paints Buddhas and Hindu gods--the ones with 100 arms and hats that look like tinfoil traffic cones. Back in the 50's he lived in Greenwich Village. That right, he was in the vortex of the beat generation. He frequented the same coffee bars as Kerouac and Ginsberg and Corso, and was good friends with a lesser-known wino author named Donald Newlove, who mentioned Phil by name in one of his books. I write a letter to Phil at least once a month because he lives alone now that his wife died. I'm fascinated by his life. And I often think, I wish I knew Phil when he was young, traipsing around the Village before it was perverted by money, drunk as a skunk, painting for love and money and living life with the firey souls of the time.

When my grandfather died two years ago I had similar thoughts about him. I wished I had known him when he was in the Navy during WWII. He worked in the basement of the Pentagon re-writing radio codes every time a plane was shot down in enemy territory. He went to Stuyvesant High School in New York in the 30's, and delivered ice from the back of a horse-drawn cart in the evenings. During college he bought a few taxis and ran a cab service in the city. He liked to drink gin and tonics, and smoked avidly. In fact, my grandmother tells us stories about how he'd walk into the shower with a lit cigarette, then walk out a few minutes later with the same cigarette, still lit. In his later years he became good friends with Abe Poland, who owned the Washington Capitols, and would frequently watch the games from Abe's skybox.

My reverence for these two men is about as deep as reverence can be. And I sincerely wish I had been around when they were young. Frankly, I think we would have hit it off famously.

Similarly, I wish I'd been around when "propaganda" wasn't a dirty word. There was about 10 years after Bernays started talking about it, and before the Nazi's shanghaied it, that propaganda was actually a good thing. It was like the strong-armed brother of PR, which itself was in its fledgling years, as well. But to be able to go around so shamelessly promoting something, essentially manipulating public opinion so it sways in your favor... Man, that must have been something. Almost a shame we missed it.

Oh, wait...

Minimum Wrage

Velvet and Blenders

I began reading the Bernays and Lippmann articles with a bad attitude. Maybe bad attitude isn't the right choice of words...perhaps disappointed is a better word? I hate e-reserves. As someone who is very into highlighting and circling, e-reserves bothers me because I can't make all my little notes on the text. Why not just print them out, right? Well, I'm cheap. Paper is in high demand in my apartment, (as some professors can attest to who have received papers from me with old papers printed on the backs of them) and I get even more disappointed printing out 7 page articles I will probably only look at a few times. So what does this have to do with audience approach and rhetorical situation? In regards to the pro-propaganda Bernays, we've all been on the other side of advertisement and media manipulation. Watching that late night infomercial could be the reason you are now a less-than-proud owner of a blender. Bernays believes that the situational circumstances of a political candidate like Coolidge, or the fashion industry and its growing taste for velvet make voters and consumers the masters of their own domain. He presents propaganda as educational, in the case of margarine. He said margarine was getting a bad rap because people were misinformed on its ingredients, so thankfully for the nutritionists and doctors who set everybody straight on what really goes into the greasy spread, the margarine industry could prosper once again. In the case of the velvet, Bernays says Americans didn't know what an elegant textile they had on their hands with velvet. They just needed the approving nod of the French couture to give them they push they needed for it to become popular and successful. How does this relate to my aforementioned example of the blender and e-reserves. Relax, I'm getting there. Let's say you saw that same infomercial for the blender at 2:00 in the afternoon as you were on your way out to class. You might not have bought that blender. You would have had other things on your mind, like did I grab all my books? Do I have my keys? But at 2:00 in the morning, you're bored, trying to go to sleep, and the only thing on is that persuasive commercial about the blender. So you get it, because the host has made some really good points and it is only three easy payments of $19.99...As for e-reserves, if these articles were in a book, I could've made notes and highlighted like I like too. My post probably would have been a lot better without these annoying examples about velvet and blenders, and then you wouldn't have to read such a boring post. :-)

The H Word

The H word! Someone remind me of the H word that Dr. Mahoney put on the board today because I didn't write it down!

That is what Bernays article reminds me of. He seems to be saying that to persuade public opinion you must get certain groups to agree with something and by doing that, it is possible to get other groups to believe the same thing. First, sell a new product to upscale companies and convince important people to wear or use it, then the general public will see that this product is important in some way and that to be great too, or fashionable, or smart, they should buy it.

Yeah.

And for Lippmann, all I could think of was voting, or not voting- as it is. I voted as an immature, partially lazy 19-year-old and went with the popular opinion of those surrounding my life. I was scared about war and scared that it would come here if we took the guy who started the whole thing out of office, but I didn't look up any facts. I didn't worry about who said they would lower tuition, or participate in the important things that will help the environment, or even what Kerry intended to do about the war. I went with my gut-- my gut and those around me who felt the same way. Lippmann's article was right and so I listened and when he mentioned that most people admit that they don't really care about the election, I agreed.

Each of these men has a strong idea about how the general public thinks, what they think about and who has the power to change their thought. It isn't my favorite kind of reading, but looking at what I've learned, it was pretty interesting.

YOU KNOW YOU WANT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Persuaders really opened my eyes to see how stalkerish the advertising industry is. These people profit off of obsession, its kinda freaky! The advertising industry is like an annoying nerd trying desperately to get our attention.The poor guy, like advertising, hopes that you will want him! He wants you to fall madly in love with him and never EVER let him go. This guy is very determined though and will try anything possible to win you over. First he thinks " What can I do that hasn't been done before?" He sees where others have failed and tries to develop new ways of getting your attention. You on the other hand, are not impressed, you simply ignore the annoyance and move forward. Next the guy asks other girls what they like (surveys), find out as much information about you and even go as far as to get outside help, all in the name of making you want him. He says things like "all girls want me and so should you!" he might even try to appeal to your sensitive side, like telling you that he loves everything you love. All of this guys tactics may get your attention but doesn't make you want him anymore.

The problem isn't that the guy is undesirable . The problem is that he tries way too hard and becomes annoying. Because he behaves this way consistently, he's predictable, and because he gravels at your feet constantly, you feel like you are the shit! The solution: act like he doesnt want you! If he stops graveling at your feet, and makes you feel like your the loser, not him, then he will make you want him. It's that whole reverse psychology thing; make them feel like they aren't wanted and it will pique their interest. I know this sounds horrible.

This should be worked out in the advertising world. One of the most succesful businesses Abercrombie and Fitch are pros at creating an elite image. They don't flood you with Ads, they dont make you want them. In the process, you do want them. Maybe the Advertising of the future will be no advertising at all.

Bernays & Lippmann

Well just to add a few words about these two, I think that both of them approach the audience well.
They appeal to the audience by giving the consumer what they want. Take for example the vegetable shortening section of Bernays. Jewish people did not use/buy this product because it did not fit in with their dietary requirements. In response to this, the company changed the ingredients and had it approved by religious officials.
I personally feel that this type of action does in fact persuade people of the Jewish religion to buy this product.
A part of Lippmann that was very interesting was the line that stated "Thus the genius of any illuminating public discussion is not obscure and censor private interest but to help it sail and make it sail under its own colors.
When you think about and contemplate this notion, it is what the public wants. They want to know about obscured and censored information because we as citizens find it appealing! When President Clinton had an affair in The White House, everyone wanted to know about it. They wanted to know all the details. If that is what the public wants....they are going to get it!

Good Stuff!

Persuaders

So I have to say that I thought this movie was going to be boring and that I was going to have to strain to stay awake. But in all actuality it was pretty good. It was very interesting to see how advertisers do everything in their power to make us, the consumers, give in and purchase whatever they are selling. What was also pretty interesting and at the same time very scary was the great deal of research that goes into pulling the consumer in.
Well all in all, the movie was very infromative. Now when I go places I look at ads and I watch commercials and I start to think about the movie.

The Persuaders!

Love this movie. I thought it was informative as well as being entertaining. It is crazy to think that everything we see on TV, in the streets, on highway billboards; everything we hear on the radio..is all to get us to buy something or to do something. Thinking about the concept of advertising, could you picture not having any type of advertisements anywhere?? I could not picture walking in Time Square with no crazy neon lights scream at me, no taxi drivers displaying the next big play on Broadway, or half naked people advertising underwear!
I found that this movie not only demonstrated the long man hours put aside to come up with a measly slogan for white bread, or a way to emotionally connect to viewers to buy cheerios. Although I have always known that millions of dollars a year are spent to show consumers why their products are the best, but I never knew that some company's actually treat it as a science!!
I would have to say that at certain points in the movie I found myself more pissed off then anything. The way the companies treat their consumers makes me think that they really do not have the best interested in the people that buy them, all they are really concerned with is whether or not they will beat out their competitors. I can just see a bunch of suites sitting around an office from different company's bragging about the new commercials that are coming out and how many billions of dollars they spend on trying to appeal to the public.
Further more, I would just like to add that just because they have babies in cheerios commercials does not mean I'm going to buy cheerios. Just because an air line appeals to females on a independent and emotional level, doesn't mean i am going to take it. (Besides me who thought that there advertising in no way explained that it was an airline??)
With that i will end my discussion.....See you in class
:)