Social Semiotics

Social semiotics is a field of study that examines how signs and symbols function to create and convey meaning. The social component of this indicates that it analyzes a variety of communication modes including text, images, gestures, and others. It was first discovered by Michael Halliday who mostly looked at language, then these I ideas were expanded on by Gunther Kress to also include visual communication. The overarching importance of this field of study is that it allows us to understand how meaning is first constructed, then communicated, and finally interpreted. It can enhance communication strategies, discover underlying messages in different contexts, and make us more aware of how we can convey meaning through many different modes.  

Some rules associated with the methodology of social semiotics is vertical positioning, horizontal positioning, arrangement of elements, and colors. For positioning, the placement of certain things whether that be in the top, bottom, far left, or far right of the image conveys different meanings. For example things at the very top of an image convey what is imagined or desired, while the bottom is what is known or reality. Similarly, things on the far left indicate what is known, while things on the far right indicate what is unknown or new. There are also different messages for the overall composition of images. For example, symmetry conveys balance and harmony, while asymmetry conveys disorganization or chaos. Lastly, color is very important for conveying different emotions. For example, bright colors indicate more energy and excitement while dark colors indicate more seriousness. 

To give some examples of how we can analyze images through the social semiotics method, I'll try my best to analyze these two images: 

This image shows what is reality or known on the body through placement of the person on a deck near the bottom of the frame. Furthermore, what is imagined or desired is the miles and miles of unexplored nature towards the top of the image. Additionally, the image is very symmetrical with leading lines to the person in the middle representing the balance and harmony in serene nature. Also, the bright yellow jacket in the middle draws the attention of the viewer and helps to convey the individuality of the person optimism. Lastly, the reflection of the mountains on the lake help to also convey the underlying theme of self reflection and solitude in nature. 

This image also conveys a lot of meaning. It demonstrates symmetry to show unity and balance where athletes from all over the world come together to compete in a sport they're each dedicated to. It also highlights bright colors to convey energy, joy, and excitement. Furthermore, our readings this week states, “While some news photographs may seem merely to record an event, the camera is not objective.” (Crusius & Channell, 2016, p. 81). I think this is a great example of this because one thing I believe was really intentional by the photographer taking this photo was the eye-level angle which helps convey equality. Conveying equality is important in this context because it further supports the actions happening in the image of two athletes supporting the first place winner in solidarity with her even though she was their competitor. 

References: 

Crusius, T., & Channell, C. (2016). The aims of argument: A text and reader (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Social Media

Over time, with the introduction of the online landscape, the dynamics of public opinion formation and communication strategies have immensely transformed. This transformation is due to many different things, but primarily from changes in the accessibility of information, the speed at which we obtain this information, and how easy it is to share your opinion with a widespread audience and interact with others. For one, the online landscape has greatly transformed our accessibility to information. With just a quick sentence in the Google search engine, you can access countless amounts of related information. With this, once someone has formed an opinion, there are numerous platforms that people can share their thoughts on. Furthermore, features on social media like hashtags, retweets, and reposts allow for this information to be spread very rapidly. 

Due to this transformation, the rapid spread of information or dialogue between people can contribute to misinformation. Most of the tweets or posts that go "viral" on social media have triggered an emotional response which gets people very invested and makes them feel a need for a rapid response. Because of this, people don't take time to use logic when expressing their opinions and rather appeal to emotion which is a very effective tool in persuasion as human beings. Additionally, since social media includes any and all opinions from its users, misinformation may spread quickly and can greatly affect how public opinion is shaped. 

To further build on this, both the Narrative Paradigm and Gatekeeping theories can be applied to social media and may help explain why we communicate in this way. The narrative paradigm, as discussed in my class lecture this week, explains how humans are natural storytellers and use stories to make sense of things in the world. With this, personal stories often involve the use of pathos or appeal to emotion, which is highly persuasive. In Chapter 15 of Human Communication, it states "Narratives are also powerful strategies for introducing emotion because stories often detail the experiences of others and create identification between the audience and those mentioned in the stories" (Pearson et al., 2021). On social media, the use of stories can easily resonate with others and thus persuade them while not including any logic or rationale. 

Additionally, the Gatekeeping theory which describes the control of information theory also greatly influences communication. For social media to work as well as it does, it contains algorithms to keep people engaged and do this by presenting them with things they like or have expressed an interest in in the past. However, these personalized algorithms can be problematic in that your side of social media only gets you exposure to opinions that align with your own which only reinforces current beliefs, leading to polarization. 

Overall, social media is a very powerful tool and we must understand how it works and the way people communicate to ensure proper utilization. 

References: 

Pearson, J. C., Nelson, P. E., Titsworth, S., & Hosek, A. M. (2021). Human communication (7th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Communication Fallacies

    After completing the readings for this week, I have realized that there are many fallacies that exist everywhere, especially in news articles online. One article that I chose to investigate was a Fox News article that discussed research findings suggesting significant risks to women who take abortion pills. There were many fallacies that I found within this article while reading it. For one, this article is entirely based on hasty generalizations. This article claims that mifepristone is shown to have significant adverse effects that leave people in the hospital after taking them. However, this article only references findings from one study. Additionally, this study's findings were only based on insurance claims data, which could also leave out very pertinent context and data. Furthermore, the article goes on to make claims like, "abortion drugs pose significant dangers to women" based on the research in this one study which further flaws this argument. The reading for this week states, "A common flaw in arguing is stating the claim as absolute, or universally true, when in fact there may be exception or citation where it is not true." (Crusius & Channell, 2016) There were no other study's mentioned to back up this claim which the article implies is absolute, affecting all women. 

    To go along with these claims, another fallacy that I found in this argument was that they greatly appealed to fear, argumentum ad metum. This type of fallacy uses phrases to evoke fear about a certain outcome in their audience in order to persuade them. For example, the article uses phrases about abortion pills including "deadly for children" and "very dangerous for girls". This type of language tries to provoke fear in the audience rather than using legitimate evidence and ultimately flaws their argument. 

    In addition to these fallacies, another one that I noticed was the false cause fallacy. After presenting a couple findings from this one study, the article then goes on to talk about how the Biden administration relaxed certain safety protocols by allowing these prescriptions to be sent through the mail, adverse health outcomes have greatly increased and will continue to increase unless the Trump administration changes them. This implication has no evidence to support its causality. Furthermore, it

does not take into account other factors, like more people taking this medication could show more instances of complications, which could contribute to why there may be a correlation. Nonetheless, there remains no evidence to suggest any sort of cause and affect relationship here. 

    Something else to note was that I also noticed this article didn't actually cite the source that they were referencing throughout the whole article. Since I wasn't able to evaluate their sources, this raised even more doubt for me while reading the claims they were making and could reveal additional fallacies as well. 

References: 

Crusius, T., & Channell, C. (2016). The aims of argument: A text and reader (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education

Online Arguments

The argument that I choose to analyze was found on reddit and were many people discussing the decision that gymnast Simone Biles made during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. At that time, shortly prior to going out and competing with her team, Simone made the decision to drop out of competition due to issues with her mental health. This was controversial because many thought this was selfish for her to do and that she was "quitting on her team". However, Simone explained that she felt she was a danger to herself if she chose to compete with the mental health issues she was dealing with and other people believed this decision showed courage for standing up for herself in that way. 

I chose this argument because I think it demonstrates an important issue that we see very frequently today. This is about one person's experience in their sport, but since they are held at such a high standard they are treated not like another human being. Additionally, since it's so easy now for someone to just put their opinions online and hide behind a username, it makes it really easy to treat others in this way. I think it is really common for celebrities or elite athletes to be cancelled or ridiculed in such harsh ways for things that most people do all the time. 

One negative concern I have with this online argument is use of personal attacks rather than discussing the situation all together. For example, people in the comments were calling simone "weak" and "a quitter" which is not productive for there to be an actual discussion on the topic. Another concern I have with this online argument is that many people were dismissing her reason as an excuse rather than realizing it is a legitimate reason to step away from something. This just contributes to the sigma that mental health isn't as important as physical health which demonstrates lack of empathy and invalidates psychological struggles. Lastly, since this argument was over the social media site reddit, one major area for concern is development of echo chambers. Since replies can be downvoted and sent to the bottom of the thread, opposing views are often lost and the thread just becomes an echo chamber for one side which is also not productive for a discussion. 

There are several ways for how people can argue online in a more constructive way. For one, people should be educated about the topic before engaging. It can be difficult to educate yourself and find reliable sources, but this is a critical step in having productive arguments. According to Campbell et al. (2015, p. 49), "...Not one of the top eleven major Internet search engines indexed more than 16 percent of the Web". It is extremely important that you analyze multiple sources to gather all relevant information to be knowledgable about the entirety of the topic. Another rule for constructive arguments is to address ideas and not people. This online argument is a great example of when people are using personal attacks rather than addressing ideas. Furthermore, staying respectful to opinions of others and keeping an open mind is extremely important to help limit echo chambers and again, personal attacks. Another good rule to follow is to have evidence that supports your claims. Claims are meaningless and just an opinion if there is nothing to back them up. Lastly, a good rule to follow is practicing proposing solutions instead of only talking about the problem.   

Here is a full link to the reddit argument: Simone Biles confirms she withdrew due to mental health. Absolutely devastating.

Also, if you're interested to hear Simone's side of the story, she spoke more about the situation on this podcast not too long ago: 

References: 

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Susan Schultz Huxman, & Burkholder, T. R. (2015). The rhetorical act : thinking, speaking, and writing critically. Cengage Learning.

How Starbucks Communicates Online

Online communication has become a tremendous part of businesses today. One business that I think utilizes online communication a lot is Starbucks. When looking at their website and social media platforms I think this company does a good job communicating online. Their website is clean and visually appealing. It also does a good job of highlighting and promoting seasonal additions to its menu. For example, at the top of their page, they have their new spring flavors clear and big, along with some new rewards for signing up as a member for this week. Additionally, they have more relatable content on their social media accounts that are probably more directed towards people who are already members. For example, they have behind-the-scenes videos and short funny clips that have something to do with their business. 

The organization of the site also seems to be very intentional and thought out. Some may think that the page is just aesthetic and organized however I think their layout is very effective in catching your attention, keeping it long enough to show you the best things about their website, then letting you go before you get bored. As mentioned by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell et al. (2015), "Even the most apparently expressive discourse can have some kind of instrumental or purposive goal." For example, new menu items and rewards right at the top of their site are a great way to grab the attention of the viewer and promote their business. Then, in the middle of their site, they have more details about their business and what they're doing currently. I think this allows the viewer to learn more about what initially caught their attention at the top of the site. Lastly, at the bottom, they have extra information, maybe not super exciting stuff, but things that a viewer might want to know more about.

After looking at a few of the different platforms Starbucks is active on, I've noticed that the identity they try to portray is inclusive and sustainable. For example, their social media accounts emphasize diverse groups of employees and customers. They also partake in a lot of pride campaigns and try to illustrate a sense of community. Additionally, they advertise a lot of their sustainable packaging to try and show their contributions to the planet. 

Some areas of improvement in online communication for Starbucks could include accessibility, transparency, and more real-time interactions. For one, since they seem to have such a strong emphasis on inclusion, I think they should make their websites more accessible for people who have disabilities. For example, there could be voice navigation on their sites to help with this issue. Another area of improvement could be transparency in how they are taking steps towards sustainability. Without this, it is difficult to have trust in these businesses. Lastly, though they have a really strong presence on social media, they lack real-time interactions. For example, using "live" features on social media or taking polls more frequently could help improve engagement online. 

References:

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Susan Schultz Huxman, & Burkholder, T. R. (2015). The rhetorical act : thinking, speaking, and writing critically. Cengage Learning.

Podcast Research

    The podcast I chose to listen to is 'Science Friday'.  I chose this podcast because after scanning the titles of podcast episodes, they covered a very wide range of topics from a scientific perspective which was interesting to me. The intended audience for this podcast was adults or young adults. They were talking about subjects from a scientific perspective that required a bit of background knowledge. This could be gained through personal experience as adults, or in school as young adults. However, I think it was intended for the general public, and didn't need a ton of education in science to understand. 

    While listening to the host's delivery, I think they did a pretty good job at keeping the podcast engaging. Her volume wasn't too loud or too soft. Additionally, I thought that her rate of speaking was pretty good. There were times that she sped up slightly or slowed down which made you tune into the more important parts of her speaking. It also sounded more conversational in this way. Her tone was also engaging because it was never monotone. I think they did a really good job of communicating this information. In the episode I listened to, they were talking about some research evidence as it pertained to their topic. Overall, they described findings really well, but I do think it is nice to have some graphics of data to see the evidence in a different way as well. 

    Some of the specific delivery techniques from the podcast that I noticed were intentional pauses and some laughter/sarcasm at some points. Pauses in their speaking definitely kept things more engaging. Additionally, there were times where the host would use some sarcasm and have a little laugh which made it more interesting than just a bunch of facts lectured at you. Additionally, since you can't see any smiles or facial expressions in podcasts, this was especially helpful in effectively portraying a message or feeling to the audience. As noted in the readings discussing axioms to reduce uncertainty it states, "As nonverbal warmth increases, uncertainty levels will decrease in an initial interaction situation." (Griffin et al., 2019, p. 107). A pleasant tone is noted to be one of the ways to exhibit nonverbal warmth which I found was utilized in this podcast very effectively. I plan to incorporate these techniques of keeping a good rate of speaking and verbal expression of feelings to make my future podcast more effective. 

    Overall, I think that this podcast was interesting to listen too. It wasn't too long and kept the information concise and to the point which made it very engaging. Additionally, the host did a great job of utilizing good tone, volume, and rate for an interesting podcast that spoke about scientific articles and evidence. From this, I learned that the delivery has a really big impact in the audiences' listening experience. Also, since you can't see any expressions, it is that much more important to emphasize feelings through tone and maybe even some laughter when making podcasts. 

Here's a link to the episode of the podcast episode I listened to if you're interested! 

Untangling the Mind-Body Connection in Chronic Pain 

References: 

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., Glenn Grayson Sparks, & Mcgraw-Hill Education. (2019). A first look at communication theory (10th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education, Copyright.

The Digital Native Versus Immigrant Divide

    The immigrant/native divide, as described by Prensky, is this idea that new generations who have been born into the digital world have grown up in such a different way than those who were born before the digital world that it has created a divide that affects how students learn. The "digital native" began learning in a time with widespread technology, while "digital immigrants" learned before many of the technological advancements we have today. Given these differences, Prensky suggests that there is now a divide between teachers, who are digital immigrants, and students, who are digital natives that affect our educational system. For example, given how quickly digital natives are used to receiving information due to technology, the way they process information differs from how digital immigrants are used to processing information. With this, it can be difficult for digital immigrants to understand this and adapt their teaching methods to accommodate this. Additionally, according to the reading it states, "Digital Immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the Natives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice." (Prensky, 2012, p. 70). Even though not all Digital Immigrants may think this way, this furthers the divide thus making it more difficult to teach new generations effectively. 

    Though I believe that Prensky has brought up some interesting points about how the digital age may have affected teacher-student dynamics and education, there have been some myths found associated with his ideas. An article by Kirschner (2017) gathered some evidence to outline a few of the myths in Presnky's work. Kirschner discusses that being a 'digital native' doesn't necessarily mean one is 'digitally literate.' What I think he means by this is that growing up with technology does not necessarily mean one knows how to use it in ways that further their learning. The article states, "... while students appear to use a large quantity and variety of technologies for communication, learning, staying connected with their friends and engaging with the world around them, they are using them primarily for “personal empowerment and entertainment, but not always digitally literate in using technology to support their learning..." (Kirschner, 2017). This statement shows that the term "digital native" doesn't really hold the meaning Prensky claims it does. This is because even though people grew up with technology, they still must learn how to be 'literate' with technology which is evidently shown to not always be the case. 

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(67), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001

Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom : hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Corwin.

Here is a helpful quick video defining digital natives and digital immigrants for some more details: