CHAPTER 3: P-C AND HATE SPEECH:

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. On page 88, Lakeoff writes, “Who has that power?” Explain her question. What does she mean by “power”? And, who is “who”?

3. Find and discuss a passage from the scene from Julius Caesar that seems to illustrate Lakeoff’s view of linguistic power.

4. Explain Lakeoff’s explanation of why hate speech becomes meaningful and has power.

5. According to Lakeoff, is the politics of “p-c” the same as – or different from the politics of “hate speech”? Do you agree or disagree with her arguments? Why?

6. Isn’t the language war over “p-c” just another aspect of political communications? Or, is it distinct? If so, how and why?

7. My Last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?

CHAPTER 4: HILL/THOMAS:

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. What narrative implications arise from Lakeoff calling the Thomas Confirmation Hearing “a circus”?

3. Explain what Lakeoff means by “raw meaning.” How has the power to make “raw meaning” What other kind of meaning is there? Who has the power to make these other kinds of meaning?

4. How does Nimmo & Combs’ concept of “indirect reality” apply to Lakeoff’s analysis of the Thomas Hearings?

5. What is a “meta-narrative”? How does this concept relate (if at all) to what we have been saying about “myth”?

6. Wasn’t the language war over Thomas’s Confirmation just another aspect of political communications? Or, is it distinct? If so, how and why?

7. My Last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?

CHAPTER 5: H.R. CLINTON:

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. How many “Hillary”s does Lakeoff describe? Briefly – very briefly – describe each of them.

3. How does Nimmo & Combs’ concept of “indirect reality” apply to Lakeoff’s analysis of all these “Hillary”s?

4. Is Steven Oats were to read this chapter of Lakeoff, what might be say? Are all the “Hillary”s a form of myth?

5. Was Sen. Clinton the victim of “instant mythology”? (See her discussion of instant words on page 90.)

6. Is the politics the Lakeoff describes still going on in the Nation? Did it go on in the 2004 presidential election?

7. Wasn’t the language war over Clinton’s public image just another aspect of political communications? Or, is it distinct? If so, how and why?

8. My Last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?

CHAPTER 6: WHO FRAMED O.J.?

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. What do you think Lakeoff means by (p. 200) “We like our nonfiction to resemble our fiction”?

3. Show how any statement like “It really all about…” is so important in storytelling. How did this happen in the public’s reactions to the Simpson Trial?

4. Explain Lakeoff’s statement (p.207) “A frame works successfully only as long as it is imperceptible to those who employ it.” How did this happen in the Simpson Trial?

5. What is “metanullification”?

6. Lakeoff writes (p.216), “…in court, emotion and reason are not antitheses.” Do you agree or disagree? Why? How is this illustrated (or refuted) by the Simpson Trial? Can you think of other court trials in the past few years that might have exhibited the same thing?

7. My last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?

CHAPTER 7: EBONICS

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. Most of this chapter is just one long – and (I find) very interesting – story. So, do a thorough summary of Lakeoff’s story.

3. Is Lakeoff’s explanation of the events in the Oakland schools:

   1. convincing,

   2. disappointing,

   3. reassuring, or

   4. an example of her own theory?

Why or why not?

3.   What sort of linguistic power was at stake in the ebonics wars of Oakland?

4.   My Last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?

CHAPTER 8: THE STORY OF UGH

1. Summarize Lakeoff’s subject, story and argument in this chapter.

2. What are the “two language wars,” the “culture war,” and the “revenge war” that Lakeoff discusses in this chapter?

3. Lake seems to be arguing in this chapter that journalism has turned politics into “a little morality play.” Do you agree or disagree? Why?

4. Is Lakeoff’s use of the word “Gategate” an example of the linguistics she is criticizing in her book? Why or why not?

5. What is the purpose of comparing the Watergate Scandal to the television soap opera “Peyton Place”?

6. My last Question: Where are Lakeoff’s own personal political biases in her theory and in her application of that theory to these specific historical events?