Signs in Linguistics

Signs in Linguistics A problem that typically troubles the humanities is the ambiguity of primitive terms. An inquiry into their meaning is usually undertaken only after a period of time when they are used un-critically, possibly under the presumption of their complete self-evidence. A closer scrutiny reveals that this belief is hardly warranted. The boundaries of their meanings are so fuzzy that critical analysis turns into a partial reconstruction from ground-zero. That is what this essay will attempt with the notion of the sign and its extra-linguistic connotations. This essay locates this re-construction at the moment when Ferdinand de Saussure sought to carve out the discipline of linguistics, reformulating the existing notion of the sign. The simultaneous heralding of the related, larger discipline of Semiology that for Saussure would subsume linguistics meant that the notion of the sign also got branched. Saussures contemporary, C.S. Peirces ideas of signifying construction as an unlimited sign-ex changing process- the idea of the unlimited semiosis- announced an alternative approach to conceptualizing the sign. The present essay will trace the evolution in meaning of the sign in both Semiology: the study of signs based on linguistics; and Semiotics: the study of signs based on logic. Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacans understanding of subjectivity as constructed in and through language, discounting the possibility of connecting words and things will then be evaluated. Lastly, Ronald Barthes idea of the photographic image, borrowed from Peirce but reworked through the advertisement will be considered. A modern advertisement is then used to substantiate Barthes premise that though the photographic message seems like a message without a code, it ends up being highly coded. The crux of the essay is that the extra-linguistic reality that is ascribed to the sign is just that- extra-linguistic. The linguistic sign which encompasses all semiological systems is nothing but the unity of the Sr and the Sd. The precise moment at which Saussure signals his disinheritance, as it were, from erstwhile linguistic traditions is where he criticizes existing and erstwhile analyses of language as a naming process. This disinheritance of his marks the crucial juncture which sounds the birth pangs of the discipline we now conceive as linguistics and signals the heart of the present investigation. Hence, it is this moment which needs elaboration and scrutiny. What this essay will attempt to analyze is how Saussures conceptualization of the linguistic sign has influenced thinkers, psychoanalysts, philosophers, co-(and later) linguists. The influence has resulted in several different understandings of the linguistic sign that Saussure envisaged, the rationale(s) behind which will form the core of this discussion. For Saussure, an understanding of the linguistic sign as a naming process assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words, it does not tell us whether a name is vocal or psychological in nature, and assumes that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation. (Saussure, Pg 65) Nevertheless, he does credit the erstwhile conceptualization of the linguistic sign as bringing him near his eventual formulation of the linguistic unit as a double entity. For him, this unit unites a concept and a sound-image. Saussure seems at pains to emphasize the non -physicality of the sound-image, calling it the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression it makes on our senses. (Saussure, Pg 66) The only sense in which the sound-image is sensory, or as Saussure calls it, material, is when opposing it to the other term of the association- the concept. Not only does Saussure re-conceptualize the existing constituents of the linguistic unit, he refashions the very idea of the sign as it was understood in his time. Contemporaries used sign to designate just a sound-image. But the profound implications of this for Saussure are evident from his comments as relayed by the diligence of his earnest, and might I add, generous students, in the Course in General Linguistics. Saussure uses his favourite example to demonstrate this. For him, one forgets that arbor (Latin for tree) is called a sign only because it carries the concept treeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the idea of the sensory part implies (the) idea of the whole. (Saussure, Pg 67) It is to resolve this that Saussure says that the definition of the linguistic sign poses an important question of terminology. For him, the prevailing ambiguity could be resolved if three terms were to be chosen to designate the linguistic unit and its two components. He chose sign to designate the whole. Signifier (Sr) and signified (Sd) replaced the sound-image and the concept. This was done because Sr and Sd had the advantage of indicating the opposition that separates them from each other and the whole of which they are parts (emphasis mine) (Saussure, Pg 67) Immediately after this radical reformulation, Saussure said something that pre-empted the genesis of the present discussion. He stated that the sign is arbitrary because the choice of the signifierà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ is unmotivated, i.e., arbitrary in that it has no natural connection with the signified (Saussure, Pg 69) Many thinkers (like Hjemslev) since have maintained like Saussure that language cannot be reduced to extra-linguistic factors, whether in the nature of things or of thought, in other words, that it is arbitrary. Others, like Benveniste, argue that it is partially or totally motivated by these same factors. For Benveniste, Saussures arbitrary argument is falsified by an unconscious recourse to a third term which was not included in the initial definition- the thing itself, the reality. (Benveniste, Pg 44) Benveniste attacks Saussures logic and finds the contradiction inherent in Saussures formulation. He believes that if one states like Saussure does that language is a fo rm, not a substance, it becomes imperative to leave the substance outside the realm of the sign. However, it is only when one thinks of the animal ox in its substantial particularity that one is justified in considering arbitrary the relationship between bof (French for ox) on the one hand and ox on the other to the same reality. (Benveniste, Pg 44) The tension that Benveniste alerts to in Saussure stems from the way Saussure defined the linguistic sign and the fundamental nature he attributed to it. This is elaborated upon by Benveniste through a systematic refutation of Saussures justifications for refuting objections to his (Saussures ) calling the relationship between Sr and Sd arbitrary. The first of these is the use of onomatopoeias and interjections. Saussures refutations to these objections to the arbitrariness of the sign are predicated on the notion of conventionality and these words similar relations (as other ordinary, non-onomatopoeic words) to the syntax of a particular grammar, and the difference in interjections across languages. Moreover, mutability and immutability of the sign are possible solely due to the arbitrary relationship between the Sr and Sd, according to Saussure. For Benveniste the arbitrary relationship is between the sign and the object, not the Sr and the Sd. He accepts Saussures propositions for the process of signification, not the sign. Benveniste is equally critical of Saussures notion of the linguistic value. For Saussure the identity of a given signifier or a given signified is established through the ways in which it differs from all other signifiers or signifieds within the same system. (Saussure, Pg 115) This relative value stems from the arbitrariness of the sign. For Benveniste, however, the choice that invokes a certain idea for a certain slice of sound is not at all arbitrary. In reality, Benveniste believes, Saussure was thinking of the representation of the real object and of the unnecessary and unmotivated character of the bond which united the sign to the thing signified (emphasis mine) (Benvensite, Pg 47) The crux of Benvenistes argument is that the sign, the primordial element of the linguistic system, includes a Sr and Sd whose bond has to be recognized as necessary, these two components being consubstantially the same.. linguistic values maintain themselves in a relationship of opposition which is, therefore, necessary. The description of a sign in Saussure, as the discussion on Benveniste and the following discussion on Peirce indicate, involves only the relation between its two components, Sr and Sd, and not that between the unit resulting from their union and what it stands for or refers to in the extra-linguistic world. This tension in taking or not taking the thing from the extra-linguistic world itself into consideration when defining the sign, or else, not talking of language as pure form, has manifest itself in several subsequent philosophical and linguistic debates. C.S. Peirces classification of signs is one such. Peirce defines the sign in the following way: A sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground. (Peirce, Pg 99) What is pivotal here is the quality of thirdness that Peirce bestows on the sign relation. Thirdness is that quality which allows translatability. For Peirce, the only way in which the relationship between Representamen (closest to Saussures Sr) and the idea of the Object (Closest to Saussures Sd) can be understood is if they are in a context. This is what the quality of thirdness enables (closest to Saussures sign). It allows the possibility of interpreting the relationship between the Representamen and the idea of the Object. The Interpretant, imbued with this quality, therefore, awakens the potential of sign generation and intelligibility. Peirces conceptualization seems to indicate that signs are not what one sees/hears but what one infers from what one sees/hears. This is the realm where the Interpretant assumes primacy and the debate on whether the sign actually refers to a name-thing relation is brought to a head. Thirdness for Peirce is that which is general. And it is, for Peirce, real too. However, it does not exist. Making a distinction between existence and reality, this essay argues, is a first step towards understanding Peirce and his contribution to the debate Saussure unfurled. Peirce seems to believe that signs exist exclusively due to their replicas, i.e. due to concrete sounds, inscriptions etc. So conceived, signs are individual objects. Nevertheless, that way of being of a sign is derivative only from its genuine being as a general object. (Peirce, Pg 76) That second way of being is essential for a sign. A sign is a kind of ideal object, general, timeless, and independent of subjective thinking. (Peirce, Pg 77) Peirce ascribes to generality the real mode of being. It constitutes the special level of being which he calls thirdness. And, nothing that belongs in thirdness can exist because only individual things are capable of existence (Peirce, Pg 77). Thus, each replica as a tempo rary individual object has to be a derivative of the genuine general sign through the context and the possibility of translatability (or, inference) that the Interpretant enables. It has no self-subsistence of its own. Physical phenomena are potential replicas of signs. However, they become signs only by entering into the triadic relation. Aside from pre-empting Lacans argument, what this triad establishes for Peirce is a multiplicity of signs. As the essay has just argued, the Interpretant constitutes the third indispensable element of the triadic relation. Nevertheless, the Interpretant is a sign in itself and needs at least one more sign as its own Interpretant, and so ad infinitum. This multiplicity of signs is for Peirce logically prior to a single sign. The system creates the necessary condition for any particular sign. However, Peirce, fully aware of this self-creative power of the universe of signs, does bring in some limitations on it in his pragmatic manner. The trichotomy of icon, index and symbol allows the universe of signs to be dependent upon the empirical world of things. In Peirces universe of sign generation, the emphasis in the icon is on the Representamen; in the index, it is on the idea of the object and in the symbol, it is on the Interpretant. The icon is a sign determined by its object by virtue of its own internal nature (a quality) and is hence, immediately intelligible. Peirces idea of the qualisign comes closest to this idea of the icon. The index is a sign by virtue of a relation of co-presence it shares with the object, an existential relationship with the object, as it were. It signifies in virtue of a relationship of contiguity with its referent. The obvious counterpart for the index is the sinsign. But it can come to have an existential relationship only through its qualities. So, an index involves a qualisign or several qualisigns. The symbol is a sign by virtue of its conventional mediating abilities (as in Saussures sign, in fact). While conventionality indicates the legisign properties of the symbol, it must also be kept in mind that every legisign signifies through an instance of its application- through a replica of it. The replica is a sinsign. So, every legisign requires sinsigns only after the law/convention renders it so. (Peirce, Pgs 100-102) For Peirce, every algebraic equation is an icon, in so far as it exhibits, by means of the algebraic signs (which are not themselves icons), the relations of the quantities concerned. Any material image, as a painting, is largely conventional in its mode of representation. In itself, without a legend or label, Peirce calls it a hypoicon. This he divides into three categories- firstness, secondness and thirdness. Images are those which partake of first firstness or simple quality. Diagrams are dyadic as they represent parts of one thing by analogous relations in their own parts. Metaphors represent the representative character of a representamen by representing a parallelism in something else. (Peirce, Pg 105) What is amply evident from Peirces deliberations is that the representational character of signs as icons can be, and often is, mixed or heterogeneous. Peirce, thus, emphasizes the overlapping and flexibility of the sign categories in signifying practices. Barthes provides an analytical system to discuss the reading/interpretation of an image. Some of the questions he explores are- If the image re-presents, can it shape meaning? And how does meaning get into the image? Can an analogical representation produce true systems of signs or is it just a container of free floating information? It is here that a Lacanian understanding of the Sr and Sd relationship within the sign will not be out of order in understanding Barthes image. The crucial break that Lacan announces from Saussures formulation of the signification process is his focus on the bar separating the Sr and the Sd. Lacan introduced a new emphasis on the bar as a formula of separateness rather than of Saussurean reciprocity. This move of Lacan calls into question any theory of correspondence between words and things, thereby serving to strengthen Saussures arguments. Lacan uses the Restroom example to demonstrate his central hypothesis- we fail to pursue the question of meaning as long as we stick to the illusion that the Sr answers to the function of re-presenting the Sd. (Lacan, Pg 150)An exploration of the example will reveal that meaning that insists in the signifying chain is itself attributed to the Sd. This only happens after the meaning is inscribed in the Sd. The inscription (Sr of Ladies or Gentlemen) constitutes the Sd as such by enabling a disjunction- by making material reality differ from itself to the children. The restroom doors, it ought to be remembered, are identical on all accounts until a Sr, Gentlemen or Ladies, enters into its material constitution to make it what it is. This is how meaning enters into the image, for Lacan. The possibility of this meaning entering in to differentiate otherwise analogous material reality lies, for Lacan, in the movement of language along a chain of Srs. The other related possibility of signifying something quite other than what the signifying chain says is achieved through the act of speech. This is precisely where Lacan locates the agency of the letter. Instead of settling for the contemporary psychoanalytical view that speech masks ones thoughts (Lacan, Pg 155), Lacan thinks of the subject producing through his/her speech a truth that he/she does not know about. In order to reconcile this ( the subjects radical ex-centricity to itself) the other I can be recognized as the Other. This Other stands at a second degree of otherness which already places him as a mediator between the subject and the double which is brought to life through the language process. This Other is invoked with every lie (or, as Lacan would call it, repression of truth) as the guarantor of the truth in which it (the Other) subsists at the level of the subjects Unconscious. (Lacan, Pg 172) The similarity with Peirces notion of the mediating Interpretant, awakening the potential of inference and sign generation is obvious here. In Lacan, the Other is language itself. Language and the Unconscious are therefore parallel systems in Lacans framework, with the necessary corollary of the Unconscious residing in language. The reason for the emergence of this Other (language as the locus of signification) lies in Lacans chain of signification. This truth residing in the signifying chain gets repressed as the Sd slides under the Sr, and meaning gets continually veered off. The truth, he says, is always disturbing. We are used to the real. The truth we repress. (Lacan, Pg 169) Thus, with the sliding of Sd under the Sr, the stress as hinted at earlier in Lacan is on the bar separating the Sr and the Sd; and the Sr of outrunning the Sd in its meaning generating potential. As if to diagrammatically show the primacy of the Sr over the Sd, Lacan uses S for Sr and s for the Sd. His eve ntual formulation is thus: S/s. This discussion on Lacans conceptualization of the sign therefore brings to light two crucial points- firstly, that the meaning of material reality is shaped by the chain of signification consisting of Srs. Secondly, the agency of the letter manifests in discourse/ the act of speech, as the dimension of truth of the subject is manifest (unconsciously) only through the message that speech allows. The message that Lacan speaks of harks Saussures distinction between langue and parole. A linguistic code is a set of prefabricated conventional possibilities which the speaker uses to communicate with an addressee: i.e. to create messages. It is in the nature of language that there is a dialectic tension, as Saussure points out and as Barthes elaborates, between code (langue) and message (parole), where the code only exists because of its ability to create messages. This message is only understood because of its relation to a given code. A message is a singular, meaningful unit of discourse. A code is an abstraction created by the analysta logic reconstructed from the materials provided by the message. Living in a certain environment we internalize sets of codes that affect our semiotic behaviour, whether we are aware of it or not. Drawing / painting is always coded because it requires a set of rule-governed transpositions, that are historical (perspectives, rules, etc). Drawing requires apprenticeship, learning. Drawing, hence, is a culture of a culture, according to Barthes. He agrees with Peirce in as much as he considers it a re-presentation. However, Barthes claimed that there is only one seeming exception to the rule no message without a code: the photographic image, because it shows us something reproduced without human intervention (by means of a mechanical-chemical process) as if certain aspects of nature were being communicated through a photographic message without any loss. The photographic message, for Barthes, is then a sign which can be a very complex structure that mixes forms (code) and materials (message) of representation. While Peirce would say that a photograph as an icon would be immediately intelligible without codes, Barthes emphasis is on the illusion of reality that a photograph seemin gly perpetrates, the photographic paradox, as it were. An example to substantiate Barthes argument is in order. The essay will use an Indian Wills Navy Cut (year, 2001) advertisement to rethink the formal organisation of texts and images in terms of the active comprehension of texts and images in context. This is the context that the idea of an advertisement enables. Barthes clarifies the denotation of the photograph thus- Certainly the image is not the reality but at least it is its perfect analogon and it is exactly this analogical perfection which, to common sense, defines the photograph (Barthes, Pg 14). The photograph is a mechanical analogon whose message is the scene itself, literal reality. In the image above, the very point of advertising cigarettes is to sell them. The main obstacle to selling cigarettes is consumers beliefs that cigarettes ruin their health. The most relevant thing a cigarette advertiser can do, given the point of advertising, is to attempt to modify, eliminate, or repress that belief. The linguistic caption with overtones of a sustaining reciprocity (between the cigarettes and the buyer at one level) made for each other- signals this repression. According to Barthes, there are two kinds of relationships between text and image: anchorage and relay. The caption made for each other anchors the meaning of the image by ca lling forth the intended denoted meanings of mutual sustenance. On the level of connotation, the linguistic message guides interpretation. The principal function of connotation is ideological: the text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image (towards a meaning chosen in advance- persuading the buyer to believe in the reciprocity hinted at, while conveniently sidelining the dangers of smoking). According to Barthes, ideology or myth consists of the deployment of signifiers for the purpose of expressing and justifying the dominant values of a given society, class or historical period (the signs express not just themselves, but also all kind of value systems that surround them). (Barthes, Pg 46) This is precisely what anchorage allows for. It ensures that the connoted message is not missed. In relay the text and the image are in a complementary relationship. Here, the text provides meaning not found in the image. This works at the level of a psychological arm-twist, forgive the metaphor, with the company more or less dictating the kind of residual impression an audience will take away from the advertisement. Both the words and images are fragments of a more general syntagm and the unity of the message is realized on a higher level. (Barthes, Pg 41) The message is loud and clear- committing the reader or viewer to acceptance of the relation of reciprocity communicated. Of particular significance here is the denotation- a statutory warning relegated and literally sidelined- Cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Denotation is the literal or obvious meaning or the first-order signifying system. It connotes the pressure on cigarette companies to seem socially responsible. Connotation refers to second-order signifying systems, additional cultural meanings we can also find from the image or text. The meaning garnered from this warning is firstly, a veneer of social responsibility that the company seeks to don and secondly, the pragmatic aim to not highlight something that is evidently counter-productive to the purpose of selling cigarettes. Peirce would call this a legisign in as much as it is a convention hinted at- that of self-interest in sidelining the warning combined with the legislative bindings on the company to include a statutory warning on its package. The coded message is thus the functioning of the advertisement within a larger moral uni verse dictated by conventionality. The anonymous and non-reciprocal nature of advertising makes it generally impossible for the consumer to challenge the advertisers relation to the linguistic claims made and connotations produced, though this is a handicap to advertisers as well as an asset. The impersonality results in connotations being hazardously attributed just because they are pragmatic implications. The image, for Barthes, is a series of discontinuous signs. It is possible to read the image (as Barthes does), to understand that it collects in a certain space (the cigarette pack) certain identifiable objects (a couple joyous at the prospect of a sumptuous and, importantly, healthy, meal). The coded iconic message that one takes away is joy, health, domesticity and vitality. The background colour- green- rich with its organic overtones continues with the act of repression. The photographic paradox, according to Barthes, lies in the spectators fascination with the here-now, for the photograph is never experienced as an illusion its reality [is] that of the having been there, for in every photograph there is always the stupefying evidence of this is how it was, giving us, by a precious miracle, a reality from which we are sheltered (Barthes, Pg 41). The repression is meant to achieve this for the company. The reality sheltered thus is the imminent danger of cigarette smoking. It should be stressed that however obvious it may be that something is an advertisement, there is always an inference to be made from the cue provided to the decision that something does indeed fill an advertising slot (i.e. count as an advertisement). What I want to stress is the (minimal) knowledge about advertising which the non-coded iconic message conveys. This message is that no matter what the symbolic connotations hinted at are, the products that are being marketed are cigarettes. It is a literal message as opposed to the previous symbolic ones. But it functions as the support of the symbolic messages. (Barthes, Pg 39) The crux of Barthes assertions seem to be that a photographic message ends up being extremely coded though initially one might conceptualize it as a message without a code. This recapitulates Lacans restroom example where meaning comes to reside in the enamel doors only when the Srs (inscriptions) intrude the doors material reality (apparently without any distinguishing codes prior to this linguistic intrusion). What the essay has sought to demonstrate in all theorists considered is that the linguistic system as a whole is not a representation of some extra-linguistic reality. What has also been shown is that there is one aspect of language that is representational. This has to be located within the larger debate that Saussure sparked when he said that Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etcà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ I shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeion, sign). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern themà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics. (Introduction to Saussures Course in General Linguistics, Pg XIV) Moreover, according to Saussure, the use of language has two dimensions which are activated simultaneously. When forming a sentence we make choices from existing paradigms (lists of alternatives, such as words or grammatical forms) and arranging them in syntagmatic relationships (word after word, etc.). There are rules that govern both. A signs value is determined by its paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations. (Saussure, Pg 123) According to Barthes, this principle can be extended to all kinds of sign systems, such as fashion (dressing up, we choose the clothes from different alternatives and create a syntagm, the combination of the clothes we wear). Hence, for him, every semiological system has its linguistic admixture. He inverts Saussures dictum saying instead that semiology is a part of linguistics. (Barthes, Introduction to Elements of Semiology, Pg 11) The problem then lies not in seeing objects as necessarily semiotic and extralinguistic facts, but, as the essay has shown, rather in assuming that these objects also have a linguistic facet in the sense that the Sr in the linguistic system either stands for them or the Sr points to them. The real problem lies, as Benveniste preempted, in discerning the inner structure of the phenomenon of which only the outward appearance is perceived (Benveniste, Pg 45) The reason why we believe that in ordinary discourse language represents reality is because the linguistic world is so powerful a force for us and the linguistic world seems so natural to us, that we assume that it must mirror some sort of non-cultural or non-linguistic reality. Because of the links between language and reality that Peirce, Lacan and Barthes alert us to, and because language seems for certain nouns to be simply nomenclature (a set of names for phenomena existing in other semiotic systems), the assumption that becomes rife is that all linguistic phenomena correlate with some sort of reality. But as Lacan tells us, in such cases the object is created by the word: the object exists and is differentiated from other objects because the word exists and not the other way around. Referents in this argument exist because they are creations of the linguistic system, a way of linguisticizing our semiotic experience- as both Saussure and Barthes envisaged in their divergent ways . The linguistic sign, then, is an intrinsically linguistic combination of a linguistically created Sr and a linguistically created Sd.

Movie review Saw III Essay -- essays research papers

One of the best horror series recent is the Saw Franchise. 'Saw III' is 2006's superlative horror film and the best in the Saw trilogy. Everyone in 'Saw III' deserves an eminent collaborative achievement award, the actors Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Bahar Soomekh, and Angus Macfadyen. The director, Darren Lynn Bousman, and producers Mark Burg and Oren Koules, made the Saw franchise magnificent. Darren Lynn Bousman is the first horror director to ever have his first two major Hollywood films open up at number one, which was Saw II and Saw III. He is one of the most successful horror directors of all time. He is coming back to direct Saw IV. All the actors did an astonishing job. Tobin Bell has a loathsome attitude that is right for this character Jigsaw, a creepy serial killer who plays with his victims lives. Shawnee Smith?s performance was unpredictable, it kept you on the edge of your seat. A role women rarely have the opportunity to play. She plays an insecure, emotional woman with a self-destructive personality. Angus MacFadyen is a phenomenal underrated actor who has yet had...

Application of social learning theory in psychology research Essay

‘Explaining substance use among Puerto Rican adolescents: a partial test of social learning theory’ is an article by Holly Ventura Miller, Wesley G. Jennings, Lorna L. Alverez-Rivera and J. Mitchell Miller. The article is a 2008 publication in the Journal of Drug Issues Volume 38, issue number 1. In this study, Miller et al (2008) seek to use social learning theory to understand substance use among Puerto Rican adolescents as part of the larger Hispanic group. The importance of social learning is assessed through finding out the effect of differences in an individual’s description of substance use as compared to the description that peers have. This study is based on the view that most adolescents who have friends who are in substance abuse also become substance abusers. Perceptions about drug abuse also seem to be similar with those held by the peers. Social interactions of the youths therefore seem to play a big role in learned behavior and perceptions. Miller et al (2008) have reviewed considerable literature on social learning theory more so the aspect of differential association in acquisition of socially unacceptable behavior. A cross-cultural application of social learning theory forms the center of this study where a group (288 youths) of Puerto Rican adolescents is chosen as the study sample. This study specifically focuses on how peer and personal perception of substance use influence alcohol, cigarette and marijuana use. The survey-type of study was carried among school going youths aged 14-19 years in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The subjects were selected from public and private schools with the sample size from public schools being considerably higher compared to that from private schools (69% versus 31%). The survey was conducted using questionnaires where several variables were assessed. Questionnaires administered in public schools were written in English whereas those issued in public schools were in Hispanic. The study excluded subjects who did not report being Hispanic since ethnicity was a very crucial variable. The adolescents were assessed of their behaviors as regards to alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking and marijuana use. Predictor variables were social learning (definitions on substance abuse) and sex. The control variables in this study were age and belonging to single-parent family. After statistical analyses (logistic regression analyses), it was found out that youths in private schools had a greater lifetime substance use and reported peer influence in the use of the three substances. In addition, males were likely to be involved in use of the three substances under study as opposed to females in both types of schools. In private schools, a significant difference in substance use was noted to exist between males and females. It is also notable that cigarette use among females in public schools was influenced by their views of smoking cigarettes as a favorable behavior. This was also the case with private school males. Personal definitions were also found to play a big role in alcohol consumption. Marijuana use was mainly due to the influence of peers’ definition as opposed to personal definition. Miller et al (2008) therefore concluded that if personal definitions of substance use are favorable, the likelihood of substance abuse is high. Peer definitions are also significantly important determinants of substance abuse as evidenced by marijuana use among Puerto Rican adolescents. Sex is also a determinant factor in influencing substance use. Article 2 The article ‘social learning, self control, and substance abuse by eight grade students: at tale of two cities’ by L. Thomas Winfree Jr. and Frances P. Bernat is a 1998 publication in the Journal of Drug Issue volume 28, issue number 2. In this study, Winfree and Bernat (1998) examine the effectiveness of the social cognitive theory and self control theory in predicting level of substance abuse among a group of eight graders in a large versus a small city. Among the substances the substances that the eight grade students are assessed of include alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana among others. This sample is selected from Phoenix, Arizona and Las Cruces, N. M. the cities are choice for this study due to differences in types of crimes thus the authors of this study challenge that the two theories cannot be used to predict substance abuse among the two groups of youths. Winfree and Bernat (2008) argue that the social learning theory is viewed as being able to predict how people develop delinquent behaviors, as well as the environment that is likely to predispose one to delinquent behaviors. As such, it is viewed that substance abuse by youths can be predicted by the social learning theory as long as the social environment of the youth is well understood. On the other hand, Winfree and Bernat (1998) argue that the self control theory indicates that the level of self control determines human behavior especially in consideration of factors such as self interest and tendency to seek pleasure and not pain. In their study, Winfree and Bernet (1998) carried out a wide cross-sectional study in 11 localities including Phoenix and Las Cruces. The subjects who participated in this study gave an informed consent through either parents or guardians. Data was collected through the use of questionnaires and the surveyors helped the students in understanding the questions thus improving accuracy of data collected. Dependent variables in this study were use of different substances within the past one year. Social learning independent variables included neutralization, guilt, positive reinforcement and negative pushers. Self control independent variables included parental monitoring, impulsivity and risk-taking. After performing regression analyses, it was evident that there was a low level of substance abuse among Phoenix students who said that they would feel very guilty if their engaged in substance abuse. Higher levels of substance abuse in Phoenix sample was identified among students who agreed greatly to neutralizing statements about negativity of crime. In terms of self control, there was higher substance use among students who reported higher risk taking tendencies. However, parental control and impulsivity did not provide enough data for evaluation. In Las Cruces, it was observed that youths who had seen gangsters and viewed gangsters as having better lifestyles were likely to abuse substances. The same happened with neutralization of negativity of crime. Guilt was not a big determinant of substance abuse in Las Cruces. Conclusively, Winfree and Bernet argue that social learning theory and self control theory can be used to evaluate delinquency in adolescents. From the above two articles, social learning theory emerges as an important tool for predicting substance abuse. Counselors stand to benefit from the understanding of the application of social learning theory in this context since they can be able to associate a certain substance abuse problem to the social influences of the client. By identifying the source of the substance abuse problem using the social learning theory, the counselor is able to provide a way out of the delinquency or substance use. This would include subjecting favorable social environment and statements such that the substance abuse behavior is taken as a negative rather than a positive thing. It would also be helpful for the counselor to suggest a geographical relocation (e. g. school transfer) as an important way of creating the best environment (drug/crime-free environment) for adolescents. References Miller, H. V. , Jennings, W. G. , Alverez-Rivera, L. L. and Miller, J. M. (2008). â€Å"Explaining substance use among Puerto Rican adolescents: a partial test of social learning theory. † Journal of Drug Issues 38(1): 261+. Web. 15, July 2010. Questia. com. Winfree, L. T. and Bernat, F. T. (1998). â€Å"Social learning, self control, and substance abuse by eight grade students: at tale of two cities. † Journal of Drug Issue, 28(2): 539+. Web. 15, July 2010. Questia. com.

The Western Bank Of The Bosporus - 1303 Words

On the western bank of the Bosporus, just north of a sinuous waterway known by locals as the Golden Horn, stood a bustling Genoese colony called Pera. With merchants from Genoa, Venice and Tuscany overflowing its narrow streets, one could hardly tell that these Italian traders were in fact no less than eight hundred miles away from their Apennine homeland. As a town of itinerants, Pera of course hosted a great many places for lodging, and it was in the room of one such lodge where we would find our weary cartographer – a mid-aged man by the name of Cristoforo Buondelmonti. The time: late fall, 1422. Appearing in front of Cristoforo was a piece of creased paper, empty and trivial, yet the sole focus of his attention. He had received†¦show more content†¦Prior to receiving the commission, Cristoforo had been traveling extensively in the Aegean Sea. Though born to an affluent Florentine family, he spent the last ten years mastering the Greek language and documenting Greek islands. Accompanying him on his trip to Constantinople was a Thessalonian fur trader and acquaintance named John Anagnostes, who offered to guide him through the city before leaving for the trading post in Crimea. â€Å"What lie ahead will forever linger in your mind.† John mysteriously stated as they arrived at the city by cart from the south. Already Cristoforo could make out a wall that stretched along the horizon, which only grew in immensity as they drew closer. Its limestone blocks soaring into the sky, the Theodosian Wall (as John informed him) appeared far more imposing than any fortification he had witnessed in the West. When they approached its base, though, he soon noticed the heavy damage dealt to the rampart. â€Å"The Ottomans laid siege to the city this spring.† John said. â€Å"I heard they acquired cannons for the first time, but the defenders were able to fend off their assault after a prolonged battle.† While entering the Golden Gate, the main entrance to the capital, Cristoforo could not help but ponder the fashion of his mapping: should he emphasize the wall’s massive scale, or its wounded state? What exactly could be accomplished by either? †¦ His thoughts, however, were cut short by the awesome view