Group items tagged

This article distinguishes the difference between connotation and denotation. It explains and shows how difference in the connotations of words can alter the meaning of what you are trying to say. Even if the definitions of the words are the same, their connotations might paint different pictures. With connotation you can shift the meaning of a word to fit your viewpoint/argument.

The difference between the two and how they come about.

"The idea of assigning colors to Republicans and Democrats has been around for more than a century, though the red-blue color scheme has only been fixed relatively recently.... [In the 1900s] Democrats may have wanted to appropriate the positive connotations of blue (as in true-blue) at a time when red was becoming associated with revolutionaries and anarchists." First contemporary usage on TV in 2000, by Tim Russert.

Connotation of sorry is changing.

"Retailers would like you to believe that it's the day when stores turn a profit on the year, thus "going into the black." But don't you believe it: the true origins come from traffic-weary police officers in Philadelphia in the early 1960s. ... Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. ... the story of businesses getting "back in the black" on Black Friday doesn't start appearing until the 1980s. So the "back in the black" explanation was clearly a way to rebrand Black Friday with more positive connotations."

At its most literal level, Ebonics simply means 'black speech' (a blend of the words ebony 'black' and phonics 'sounds'). The term was created in 1973 by a group of black scholars who disliked the negative connotations of terms like 'Nonstandard Negro English' that had been coined in the 1960s when the first modern large-scale linguistic studies of African American speech-communities began. However, the term Ebonics never caught on among linguists, much less among the general public. That all changed with the 'Ebonics' controversy of December 1996 when the Oakland (CA) School Board recognized it as the 'primary' language of its majority African American students and resolved to take it into account in teaching them standard or academic English.

This article outline the bridge between the psychological and linguistic effects of swearing. I really appreciated this article because it plays both sides of the field, meaning that it addresses both the good and bad. It identifies the psychological goods to the person swearing, but also talks about the negative social connotation swearing can cause. They call it the "public-versus-science disconnect", meaning that there's a difference between the inner versus social benefits and detriments.

This is the second part of the article about political mass communication. It mostly deals with things like collocations, fill-ins, and framing. Collocations are words that are often used with others and so carry a particular connotations because of their association. For example, calling someone a rabid feminist vs. calling them a radical feminist would suggest more danger and wildness because of the use of the word rabid. Fill-ins refer to the use of deliberately obfuscating or vague language which encourages the listeners to respond by filling-in the gaps with their own preconceived notions or biases and can be a helpful persuasive tool. For example, saying something like, "they want to control you." The "they" here is vague and thus allows the listener to fill in with whatever they want. The article also touches on doublespeak and the use of euphemisms to refer to unpleasant topics (George W. Bush and enhanced interrogation anyone?). Framing, more broadly refers to the use of these tactics to get listeners to interpret the speech in certain ways favorable to the speaker.

This article frames itself from the perspective of a writer in the 23rd century. It talks about the ways that languages has evolved due to the 21st century. For example, English has returned to having two forms of 2nd person: u and you. You is now formal and u is the informal version. The article talked about acronyms like omg and rotfl have changed conversation. It also indicates that 21st century created a distinction between uncapitalized and all caps. For example, OMG and omg have slightly different connotations.

Profanity is a staple of modern life, but how did it come to be? Researchers put the starting date of swearing somewhere in the early 19th century, but they say that its popularity surged in 70's. The researchers go on to explain that profanity would not exist without people who are against it, because then profanity wouldn't have the negative connotation that it currently has.

This article first begins by talking about how in times of polarization and partisan conflict people turn to tired slogans, buzzwords, and recycled thoughts. It argues, I think correctly, that when these "second-hand thoughts" take the place of our actual ones, much is lost. Thoughtful debate and discussion becomes a mud-slinging fest where each side launches their own rhetorical salvos and is met with opposing ones in return. Later, the article breaks down the purpose of language into two purposes. The referential function helps describe concrete objects--the article uses an apple as an example. Everyone understands that, literally, an apple is a fruit. The metalingual function helps to describe the meanings behind the metaphors, cultural connotations, and etymology that accompany a word. In this case, apple could hint at the original sin of Eve or the association with teachers and their pupils. It points out that when debate turns metalingual, people have different associations so, in effect, they argue using words that carry different meanings. Thus, the overuse of metalingual language can actually obscure the truth instead of uncovering it.

Article looks at the linguistic shift away from the older generation "you're welcome" to "no problem" or "no worries." The article notes that formal language is unquestionably falling by the wayside, likely due to the increasing use of digital technology. Instant messaging and texting have compelled many young people to forgo punctuation altogether, since receiving a message with a period or question mark at the end of it can induce anxiety for some. This is because punctuation is now considered "formal," which roughly translates to "serious."The same is true for "you're welcome," according to linguists, and it might explain why younger generations are using less formal phrases when someone thanks them. While some people might mistakenly think that doing so suggests that the service was irksome or inconvenient, the linguists cited in the article contribute this phenomenon largely to linguistic mirroring. This basically means if the people you interact with on a day-to-day basis often say "you're welcome" or "no problem," then you'll likely mirror whatever phrase is more frequently being used around you. "I believe that this is just part of the evolution of language," adds Saccardi. "The majority of speakers will not intellectualize the connotative meanings of their utterances. Rather, they are more likely to just use particular phrases instead of others because that's what they have grown into." Interestingly, the phrase "you're welcome" has acquired a new meaning for younger generations, as many use it sarcastically to point out that another person forgot to thank them, as in Maui's song in _Moana_.

This article discusses from several perspectives on how sarcasm directly affects our personal relationships. Several studies were included in this article, but it was concluded that interestingly, "those who engaged in a sarcastic conversation faired better on creativity tasks." This article also comments on the common negative connotation that comes with sarcasm, but counters this perspective through an analysis done on several studies, which ultimately sheds light on how sarcasm can "harness creative benefits" within our personal relationships.