Response to Cresswell's Place, Pages 15-33

This section of Cresswell's book deals with the genealogy of place, its history, and "place" in time. This exploration of the meaning of the word begins with its standing as both object, or as the author explains, a thing that geographers and others look at, research and then write about, and also a way of looking. In this sense of the word, place is a way of looking at the world as a set of places that are separated from each other. 

People's curiosity about these differences in parts of the Earth's surface are part of the concept of place as regional geography. Specifically, this is referred to as "chorology," which is the spatial version of "chronology," which is the study of time. Thus, in this sense, place is a description of parts of the Earth. Cresswell also discusses the meaning of culture as associated with place as a shared space "that suggests the importance of meaning and practice in a given location" (17).

The idea of a location may also be about settling in a place. Sometimes place is about stopping, resting, and becoming involved, so concepts such as "value" and "belonging" become important when attempting to define place. This attachment to a place evolves from human existence and experience. Cresswell says, "Place is therefore a pre-scientific fact of life-based on the way we experience the world" (23). He explains that there are connections between place and our experience with the world, geographically and culturally. 

He moves on to the idea of place as a home. People tend to feel a sense of rootedness, control over space, and a certain center of meaning. 

Overall, this section of Cresswell's book describes the many different meanings of place. These definitions can be cultural, social, physical, geographical, even philosophical. From this reading, I discovered a connection between all of these connotations of the word and developed an understanding that a true definition of the word wouldn't be complete without all of these aspects put together. And I think that the definition of place is all but definite, and all of its meanings and connotations are meant to be interpreted in a variety of ways. 

Response to Cresswell's Place, Chapter 1

Cresswell's Place begins with a chapter in which the author attempts to define place. To Cresswell, place has multiple meanings and connotations that can be referred to collectively in the term "socio-geographical." He explains that the word place is used frequently, and though it is seemingly self-explanatory, he believes that there lies a deeper sense of the word. "Place" can describe a location, sometimes in association with ownership or privacy, or it could become more of a position, perhaps in societal terms. With so many different meanings, Cresswell asks the question, "What is this place?"

Among other definitions, Cresswell says that a place has a history that is constantly changing, and in turn it's meanings change. Cresswell uses this as a basis for the rest of the chapter. He discusses place and its relation to space and landscape. He also investigates a philosophical sense of the word. At the end of the chapter, the author explains what the intentions of his book are and how the following chapters assist in answering his question, "What is this place?"

Response to Chandler's "Denotation, Connotation, and Myth"

Every word has a denotation and a connotation. The denotation being the word's literal meaning, while the connotation is the feeling or idea that is associated with the word. Denotation and connotation are terms that describe the relationship between the signifier and the signified, as relating to the significance of a sign... : ) In other words, it is through a words denotation and connotation that creates its meaning and significance. Though a single word may contain a concise denotation, its connotation can be a variable. Many things can generate different connotations of a word. Chandler explains, "Changes of style or tone may involve different connotations, such as when using different typefaces for exactly the same text, or changing sharp focus to soft focus when taking a photograph." In today's highly technological world I find that connotations of words are becoming more and more complex. The loss of intimacy through technology invokes a loss of expression that would come naturally through speech or face-to-face conversation. This is a relationship that I am particularly interested in, having discussed it in multiple classes. The relationship between denotation and connotation is never concrete, especially with the technological influx. 

Myths differ from connotations, but the idea that the word myth suggests something false does not necessarily apply in the semiotic sense. Chandler explains that a myth becomes more like a metaphor, helping us to make sense of our experiences. Overall, denotation, connotation, and myth are what provides a meaning and allows us to comprehend our culture and language.

Response to Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

"We only think in signs."

"Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign."

- Peirce

"The sign is the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified"

-Saussure 

Chandler explains the human process of defining significance. We create and interpret signs, but nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as such? In a roundabout and almost unnecessary way, Chandler breaks down the process, overall reaching the conclusion that a sign is what results when whatever form the sign takes is associated with a concept that it represents. This is a model which he has adopted from philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure, as quoted above. It seems as though it was fellow philosopher Susanne Langer who proposed a more mental conception of a sign. She thought of signs as more symbolic. The commonality of the notion of a sign is the necessity of the relationship between the signifier and the signified. 

Chandler goes on to explain that, "The arbitrariness of the sign is a radical concept because it proposes the autonomy of language in relation to reality. The Saussurean model, with its emphasis on internal structures within a sign system, can be seen as supporting the notion that language does not 'reflect' reality but rather constructs it." In other words, that it is language that allows us to translate our ideas or concepts. We construct our reality through language which provides meaning. 

Thus, we create reality through the recognition, association, and interpretation of signs which we are able to translate through language. Chandler breaks down this process for us in his article, which is helpful in understanding the "significance" of the "sign."