Awkward Encounters

I have decided to see if there is a relationship between the use of figurative language in advertisements and a consumer’s likelihood to buy the product. I am not sure if I want to focus on a specific figure of speech, such as simile, personification, etc, or if I want to look at more than one. I am also contemplating the idea of maybe incorporating an image in the advertisement or playing around with the medium the advertisement is presented in (computer pop-ups, magazine ads, etc).

David Crystal opens his third chapter of txting the gr8 db8 by introducing six features that make texting distinctive; pictograms and logograms, initialisms, omitted letters, nonstandard spellings, shortenings, and genuine novelties. After finishing the chapter I felt as if some of these "distinctive features" were a bit redundant. Shortenings, nonstandard spellings, and omitted letters all seem to describe the same thing. Shortenings are inherently omitting letters (hence what makes them shorter), and the absence of traditional consonants and vowels makes these abbreviations different from the standard English language. While I understand Crystal's point, that the choice of which letters to drop or words to shorten varies across not just cultures but from person to person, it still felt repetitious. Here is a cell phone commercial I found that illustrates how texting can differ just within the United States.

As you already know, I am interested in the field of advertising. While reading Crystal’s book, Txting, I took particular interest in his statement saying that commercial advertising and pop music rely on nonstandard spelling, emoticons and pictograms to market their products. Since we have already talked about these topics in the past, I decided to take a different route.

What is the deal with media's impact on youth's development? In the article by Thurlow and McKay it discusses the problem with lower academic performance and the fact that media consumption is routinely blamed as the scapegoat. But is technology really to blame? Or is there some other force at work undermining the education of children? Even though it is easy to blame technology for all problems, you can't ignore that even though this generation is the "net generation" just about 9% of the world's population is actually online. If only 9% of the world is online how can technology be affecting everyone's school performance? Understandably, the United States is a very connected country, and if you do not have access to a computer at home, you can always access one at several locations such as libraries, schools, etc. throughout the community.

Knowing that Americans have constant access to technology, perhaps we have to look at this as a positive rather than a negative impact on education. In fact, later in their article Thurlow and McKay state that, "parents generally believe computers are an educational resource and computer use may be related positively to academic performance" (2003). Knowing that the internet is a limitless source of information where children are free to explore whatever drives them could be a big plus for education. There is also a big plus in internet communication. Being online offers you the ability to connect with social environments that you might not have contact with otherwise - for example when you are looking at schools long distances away you could chat with current students online and get their opinions on the school without having to travel there right away.

While we know from the article that boys and girls use technology in different ways, boys are more interested in the technology itself and entertainment such as video/computer games or surfing the web while girls use it more for communication purposes - perhaps bringing more of these aspects into the classroom would help engage children and have positive impacts. So how do we combine old methods with new technology to have the biggest positive impact in and out of the classroom? Since media is obviously here to stay, how do we make sure that technology stays positive and doesn't have a negative impact on the development and safety of children?

The article by Jerome Singer I read has a lot of important and interesting information about the benefits of imaginative play in early childhood. Singer looks at various aspects such as language acquisition, imagery, and the emotional benefits of imaginative play in developing children as well as those in middle childhood. In terms of language development the article states, "children who were more inclined to make-believe play also excelled in comprehension, clarity, and organization of words used in describing a picture" (Singer, 1998). The article also states that, "Children's play is one major way in which the young child can deal with complexity and novelty of its environment" (Singer, 1998). The really interesting party of this article is that it not only looks at developing children, but follows the positive aspects of imaginative play into middle childhood, a field with virtually no research on at the time. Singer writes, "while imaginative play in its overt form continues in middle childhood, it is increasingly less obvious and takes on somewhat different forms. Yet children yearn for it and teachers in the schools who use make-believe formats for teaching often find tremendous responsiveness from children" (1998).

So how does this relate to my comp? I am very interested in the way that children learn in the classroom. This article cites several past articles and also gave me several ideas on how I could potentially build upon these findings. If people are so worried about the way children's language is developing, perhaps we need to look at the underlying causes instead of just using media as a scapegoat - something we have been continuously bombarded with in readings. Perhaps allowing children to have more time to engage in imaginative play will help them develop more elaborate verbal fluency, and the language problem will get smaller. Also, in using play in the classroom, children will be more connected/interested in what they are learning leading to more enjoyment in the classroom. More enjoyment could lead to more drive to succeed instead of just doing what is necessary to pass from one grade to the next.

As you can see this research has limitless boundaries. Introducing new techniques into the classroom can only add to the quality of the education that children are receiving. The more data the better- because the only way education will change is if there is substantial proof that children will be receiving the same quality education with the new method as the old method, and that they will still be scoring as well if not better on tests measuring their academic aptitude. Hopefully my comp will help pave the way for positive changes in the field of education.

I am surprised to be able to say that my first idea for senior thesis has panned out, at least to this point. I began with the idea of exploring happiness, because I believe it is one of the strongest motivators in the world. After conducting further research I'm "happy" to say that I believe my topic can be well explored here at Allegheny

As we grow more and more "connected" to the media, Beer makes a good point, is it profitable to separate our online and offline lives when looking at social network sites. The main example that interests me is Facebook Friends. Is a Facebook friend the same as a face to face friend? Or does technology, in particular these social network sites change the rules of the games? It would only make sense that since these social network sites are such a big part of our lives that they would leave some influence on us as consumers.

Beer also makes a good point about how to conduct research on social network sites. He says that researchers should join into the SNS craze. If you can't beat them, join them right?? Even when joining these sites, will researchers gain the same understanding of social network sites as the people who have currently incorporated them into their lives? Is it important to realize that these researchers are only joining these sites to gain knowledge about how they function and the people who use them rather than using them as a connection to friends?

On this note, perhaps just being on the social network site will help researchers clarify how users of these sites see things. Beer quotes Lash in his article stating, "we make sense of the world through technological systems" (520). Simply stating that since these technologies have such a large part in our lives and that we are so connected, it is hard to form an understanding of something without looking at it through an SNS's eye. We have already seen the changes to the way that we define a friend, what else will change because we are no longer seeing the large separation between our online and offline lives? Perhaps we should document the ways that these social network sites are changing the way we view things such as the definition of a friend so we can keep track of how technology is impacting our lives.

Boyd and Ellison discuss what makes social network sites unique is not the ability to "network" with strangers, but to instead make visible your social network to people who are already part of your social network. In her book, Always On, Naomi Baron mentions how when using Facebook and other social networking sites, users have the ability to portray themselves on their "best day." But why do we need to portray the best of ourselves if we are only using social network sites to communicate with people who are already a part of our social network and know us at our best and our worst? Are we actually looking for networking opportunities or are we just that narcissistic and feel the need to impress everyone around us?

The term narcissism means love of oneself, and refers to the set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard. Using Facebook profiles as an example, very few people have a blank information section. Instead, profile pages are filled with interests, favorite movies, quotes, books, etc. And how can I forget the "about me" section which is usually the most narcissistic of them all. Boyd and Ellison discuss how "social network sites are structures as personal (egocentric) networks, with individuals at the center of their own community." This goes right along with the idea of editing that was also mentioned in Baron's book. We have the ability to edit who we are and present ourselves however we may chose on these sites. An important idea that needs to be addressed in future research is the variety of ways people portray themselves on these sites (humorous, serious, etc). Does it have something to do with personality type, how a person was raised or something completely unknown at the present time?

Maybe social networking sites are making our population more hypercritical and judgmental. This is something that will not be able to be determined right now; however, if the attractiveness of one's Friends and the postings on his/her Wall impact our impression of that person, I would say things are not going very well. Is it right to create an impression of someone based on their Facebook profile? If it is true that our social network site profiles are only portraying us at our "best" then that impression may not be accurate or reliable. I mean if you show up to class looking grungy and not having showered for a few days, I don't think your Facebook profile, no matter how good you look, is going to help change opinions about you.

Dr. Beer's article begins by addressing the title of SNS (social networking sites) used in boyd and Ellison's article. Beer states that this title is not clear enough in defining the sites it encompasses. I agree with the concept with the idea that these sites are not used so much for networking. Facebook in my mind is presents the illusion that we have a vast social network of friends and acquaintances. In reality, how many new friends have we made because of Facebook? These social networking sites have enabled us to increase our amount of socializing, not necessarily networking. However, the problem I had with the beginning of this article was the author's argument that the title SNS did not "fit the parameters of its definition" (519).

In thinking further about my comp, I decided to explore the use of figurative language in advertisements. Rhetorical figures can be arranged and divided based on properties and characteristics. At the highest level, a rhetorical figure is an artful deviation. The next level divides rhetorical figures into tropes and schemes. Tropes deviate from a consumers' expectations through the non-literal use of words, while schemes use literal words to deviate from expectations. Finally, tropes and schemes are divided into categories by their rhetorical operations, which is either simple or complex. Schemes are divided into repetition (simple) and reversal (complex). Examples of schemes include: Rhyme, alliteration, both simple and antimetabole and antithesis, both complex. Tropes are divided into the categories of substitution (simple) and destabilization (complex). Some examples include: Hyperbole and ellipsis, both simple and metaphor and pun, both complex. For my comp, I have decided to explore the use of tropes in advertising (metaphor and hyperbole). Also, if I am ambitious, I might explore the use of a scheme (rhyme) because no research has been done in this area.