cannot be split into smaller units and can occur alone 

e.g. exist

language as arrangement in relationship among parts of speech

(noun/ noun phrases verbs/ verb phrases etc.)

the actual observable thing

(object, event or idea refered to by words)

word assigned to referent

*= refernet

star= symbol

literal meaning of a word

e.g. shoes or burger

some words will have more than one meaning like RUN

associated meanings in addition to the primary meaning

e.g. puppy

denotative meaning and connotative meaning and register 

-register formality= variation in language depending on particular pupose/ social setting

e.g. professor talking

denotative and connotative meaning and very strong emotional sentiment (only certain words have this meaning)

e.g. abortion

contextual meaning

(specific meaning within a particular context)

e.g. "you coug'd it"

a. pronunciation is unclear e.g. oregeno or basil

b. two words sound the same e.g. wait/weight

two or more meanings because of different lexical categories

STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY

TWO TYPES

Lexical-lack of clarity in single word

e.g. run= to move rapidly(verb) OR torn/damaged fabric(noun)

SYNCTATIC- lack of clarity in phrase

e.g. visiting the dentist helps prevent tooth decay

vagueness = unclear what object (referent) a word (symbol) is referring to 

i.e. referent is unclear

e.g. I would really like to do that

single symbol=multiple referents(same word refers to more than one object)

multiple symbols=single referent(many words refer to the same object)

not always bad can be useful if used strategically

(e.g. sleeps with the fishes, sword of demacles)

STRUCTURAL=(different)

SEMANTIC=(same)

(achieve persuasion)

-one person addressing many

-demonstrating of truth

-practical questions (what must we do to handle this recession?)

-outcome: probability

(consistency) (truth)

-one on one discussion

-search for the truth

-philosophical questions

-what is human nature?

-outcome: certainty

-FORENSIC 

-EPIDEICTIC

-DELIBERATIVE

(SPEECHES)

FORENSIC:courtroom speaking (past) accusation and defense

EPIDEICTIC:ceremonial (present) questions of prase or blame

DELIBERATIVE:political speaking (future) questions of policy or action

PROOF OF ETHIS (CREDIBILITY)

-speaker must demonstrate: intelligence (practical wisdom and value), virtue (honesty), and good will (positive intention)

PROOF OF EMOTION 

*demonstartion of humanity, not a tirade of emotions, but strategic and solid persuasive appeals

*PROOF OF LOGIC

strategic use of logic to 'force' or 'arrive at' conclusion

LOGOS CONT..

DEDUCTIVE

-argumentative structure is presented before evidence/ examples (large argument to small argument)

-once proven cannot be refuted

deductive:

SYLLOGISM AND ENTHYMEME

-SYLLOGISM: major > minor > conclusion ALWAYS CONTAINS 2 PREMISES (MAJOR AND MINOR) e.g. all humans are mortal > socrates is human> socrates is mortal

-ENTHYMEME: incomplete syllogism (major/ minor > conclusion) 

i.e. assumption that audience already agrees about it.

e.g.

LOGOS CONT...

INDUCTIVE PROOFS

BOTTOM - UP

(small to large)

smoking > cancer

5 RHETORICS:

I ATE SO MANY DONUTS

-audience as passive: focuses only on speaker - does not address importance of situation: context and situational factors greatly effect power of speech/ speaker 

e.g. Obama's Inaugural speech

TELEVISION AND VIOLENCE.

-most criticism of t.v. violoence:impressionable young viewers will imitate onscreen aggression and violence. (Gerbner's concern: Emotional effects are much broader and potentially more harmful. T.v. violence changes viewer's perception of the world and convinces that 'it's a jungle out there')

-T.V. violence > change in people's emotion/attitudes

- developed objective measure for evaluating t.v. violence

-accroding to Gerbener: dramatic violence=overt expression of physical force against self and others

-Doesn't include: verbal abuse, idle threats, slaptick humor

LIKLIEHOOD OF BEING A VICTIM OF VIOLENCE:

-Race

-Sex

-Age

-Class (blue collar, white collar)

*significant because these groups are also under-represented on t.v. i.e. not consistent with actual population figures= more fear of real world violence

Homogonizing the viewers/audience

-heavy viewers begin to share same opinions, perspectives, meanings (start to see world the same way)

-prolonged exposure cultivates similar outlooks

increased apprehension if you have had a first hand experience with real world violence amplifies cultivation patterns especially for heavy viewers

-heavy vs. light viewers: doesn't amplify btwn tv genres

-assumes mainly passive viewers: who blindly accept tv representations

-what exactly is a violent act?: definition largely arbitrary

- mass media transfers salience of items on their news agendas to public agendas i.e. we judge as important as the media judges important

the original mantra: media dont tell us what to think, they tell us what to think about/ media influences public opinon (agenda) by giving some issues more space and time than others

NIXON VS. HUMPHREY: results: high correlation btwn media agenda and voter agenda

problem: news agenda > voters agenda OR voters agenda > news agenda

CARTER VS. FORD: (surveys in NH, IN, IL, and monitroed 3 major networks and local newspapers) results: correlation time lag between media agenda and voter agenda (about 4- 6 weeks)

problem: both news and public agendas may actually be influenced by an another preceeding variable

-YALE EXPERIMENT: splicing previously aired news casts, 3 groups watched only THIS for news for four days, each group saw different version (independent variable) and filled out questionairre (dependent variable) about their concerns

results: proved CAUSATION: media agenda > public agenda

NEED FOR ORIENTATION = RELEVANCE + UNCERTAINTY (INDEX OF CURIOUSITY)

-relevance: high relevance (or uncertainty) = greater media influence