According to Solomon, the presence of punctuation marks in every sentence is very important and critical. The reason for that is since punctuation lets the readers know where the stopping point of the sentence and be able to differentiate features between sentences, is one sentence still strongly related to the first one? (ig. using semicolon, etc). Besides that, Solomon also thinks that those punctuation marks can emphasize the readiness or preparedness of a sentence (What it's for, why is it there in relation to other sentences, etc). create special meanings (ig. question marks make the readers wonder & think, enchance the loudness of sentence by putting exclamation mark at the end of it), manipulate the speed of how to read the sentences (ig. coma slows the readers down, period totally stops the sentence, etc). (VR 282)
If we regard capital letters are letter being punctuated too, then we are assured by the fact that 'Capital' has a special purpose. The purpose would be to identify which words are important, and acquiring respect since they are highly regarded by people. The example for that would be nicknames (Mr. or Mrs.), titles of movies or novels (Lady In The Water), organization names (AT&T), position in working environment (CEO), and so forth. It also can be used to emphasize one or two words (or even the whole sentence), so that readers can pick those up and take those seriously (for instance. 'Eventually, the final decision is not up to you, but up to ACADEMIC AUTHORITIES!' In my opinion, the most interesting new punctuation that should be established and publicized due to its necessity to exist would be 'j/k', in which it means 'It's just a joke or humor'. J stands for Just, while K is Kidding. By having this everyone can tell more easily which one is a joke, and should not be taken seriously or linked strongly to the context of a piece.
Solomon, Martin. "The Power of Punctuation." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: pg. 282-289
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goffman argues that, for the most part of advertising, is usually depicted in a way that men are higher than women in matters of status. This has been proven through couple of convincing facts or pictures that show the status distinction by portraying men often times taller than the women (in many different types of positions). For some occasional cases, men can be equally tall or shorter than the women if the men have subordinate relations with the women (for instance. the man is a driver, and the lady is the princess). It is apparent that visual images in advertisements have dramatically changed over years. Nowadays, society have proliferated their acceptance, opened their minds on the social level of gender. Social gender have become more and more equally distinguished, meaning that men and women are equal at any level. The real issue that appears would be, do this equal measurement between men and women apply to the public media, especially in advertisements? If so, all the pictures on the media should represent equal respect and treatment among men and women, .
I disagree with Goffman's opinion since he believes that the world of advertising would be dominated with men positioned higher than the women. Evidently, a lot of recent advertisements (the modern, millenium era) have portrayed even appreciation towards both men and women, and their body posture and positions on the media or advertisements don't affect much the thoughts on the viewers. Another strong point that I could use as a feedback for my argument is that Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to sign up for presidential position, and she is in fact, a female. This indicates the empowerment of women have widely accepted, in which it means in all media, women and men no matter in what kind of situations they are, no matter who's taller than the other, are equal in social rank. It might be true that in older years, people have been accustomed to the living where women become the followers and home , while the men are always the breadwinners and the ones who have the authorities to run the family completely. However, era has changed, and social status has shifted to a whole another level.
Goffman, Erving. "GENDER ADVERTISEMENTS": pg. 28-80
1 comment:
Great work, Tommy!
I wonder though about your Clinton example.
Have you looked at how she is portrayed in the media?
Just cause she is able to run for president doesn't necessarily mean representations have changed, right?
Post a Comment