Ann Ganotis, 1/31

After our class on Tuesday I much better understand what the French men were talking about that in the reading we had to read for class.  At first I was very confused to how everything all depends on what is not seen, what is referred to as the “gap.” I felt like the point that the theorists were trying to get across was clearly stated many times but never actually fully explained. The examples that were given in class made me understand what was being said a lot more clearly. What I think they are trying to say is that what is not said or scene, it is more important than the information that is not provided.  People have files in their brains that they store based on acquired knowledge through out their lives. People often times subconsciously tap into these files and used this knowledge to make decisions as they go about their lives. A good example of this is signs and symbols. From, even before we learn to speaks, at a young age we are taught to associate things with what they mean.  Male and female signs often times don’t actually look anything like a man or a woman.  People still understand what they mean even though they are usually really simple symbols. It is what is not said that is in the meaning.  What background knowledge that we use we use in making an interpretation is what the gap really is according to my understanding. We use the gap in making sense of the language and being in our world. It truly is really used in everything in our language. Other examples that I can think of at the time are logos and symbols.  Really simple symbols that are used on handbags and other accessories is a good example. Just by a small symbol many people are able to figure out who makes the bag and around how much it cost.