Canevin Theater Essays - Gene Kelly Awards, University Of Pittsburgh

Canevin Theater Canevin Catholic High School offers many extra curricular activities. Those students geared toward the physical challenges may choose from various athletic programs such as, basketball, soccer, and football. On the other hand, there are additional activities for those more interested in a mental challenge. These students may join such organizations anywhere from FBLA to Forensics. However, of all the extra curricular activities offered by Canevin, none excites me more than Dramatics. This paper takes a look at my last three years involvement in the annual musical productions here at Canevin. Traditionally, Canevin's dramatics has been a full-scale musical production performed in the spring. Students may audition for chorus, acting or dancing parts or they may join one of the many stage crews. During freshman year, I tried out for the musical "Working." "Working" depicted different careers through dialogue, song and dance. To my surprise, I made callbacks. When the cast list was posted, the role of Anthony Polazzo, the Mason, was awarded to me. After weeks of hard work and rehearsals, it was finally opening night. From that time on, I realized Dramatics was for me. The following year, the start-up meeting could not arrive fast enough for me. The play selected for my sophomore year was "Damn Yankees." The musical's main character was Joe Hardy. Joe wanted so drastically to play baseball for the Washington Senators, that he was willing to sell his soul to the devil. When the cast list was posted this time, I was assigned to play the role of Mr. Welch. As owner of the Washington Senator's, I was expected to portray a prestigious and confident businessman who enjoyed his cigars. In one short year, I went from a mason in overalls, to a baseball team owner decked out in a suit and tie. That's show business! "Into the Woods" was selected as the musical for the following year. The story line included various adaptations of traditional fairy tales. Well, if mason to owner wasn't extreme enough, what would you say about Cinderella's father? Junior year found me playing the character of an older man who marries for the second time, to a woman with two nagging daughters. In a house of four women, no wonder he resorted to drinking. Directed to use a silver flask as a prop and a fair amount of improvisation of libations, I portrayed the character of Cinderella's father as a drunk. When the final curtain came down closing night on "Into the Woods," there was, however, one more performance still to come. This year Canevin had been nominated for 6 Gene Kelly Awards, including Best Musical in Budget Level 2. The Gene Kelly Awards sponsored by Pittsburgh's Civic Light Opera recognizes students for excellence in High School musical theater. On the night of the awards, those schools nominated for Best Show perform on the Benedum stage a selection from their production. Extra rehearsals were scheduled, and a final practice with the Benedum orchestra was needed. I am proud to announce that Canevin was awarded the Gene Kelly for Best Costume Design and Best Musical in our division. Additionally, each year two students are asked to represent their school in a final production number. This prestigious honor is always given to two seniors. Unfortunately, this year, two of the practices fell during graduation activities. Since 5 rehearsals are mandatory, our director, Treva Rueso made her selections from the junior cast members. A fellow junior and I were ecstatic to be chosen to join members from all the participating schools in the final production number, "Keep Your Eyes on the Goal." The plethora of ecstatic people applauding at the close of the Gene Kelly's was phenomenal. It was indeed an honor to represent Canevin in this collaboration of students exercising their many talents. I have experienced many gratifying moments in my years at Canevin, but few have been as electrifying as sharing with fellow cast and crew members their ability, courage, and commitment in creating the annual school musical. The Dramatic program continues to surprise its supporters with innovative musical theater. Through my experience in putting on a musical, I have learned what it means to work as a team. The camaraderie was intense and rewarding. I look forward to this year's production of "My Fair Lady," and to once again contribute and experience the magic of the stage.

lexicographer - definition and examples

lexicographer - definition and examples Definition A lexicographer is a person who writes, compiles, and/or edits a dictionary. Lexicographer examine how words come into being and how they change in terms of pronunciation, spelling, usage, and meaning.The most influential lexicographer of the 18th century was Samuel Johnson, whose Dictionary of the English Language appeared in 1755. The most influential American lexicographer was Noah Webster, whose American Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1828. See Examples and Observations below. Also see: Ambrose Bierce on Lexicographers American Spelling and British Spelling Corpus LexicographyEtymologyAn Introduction to Noah WebsterLexicographicolatryLexicographyOxford English DictionaryReading the Dictionary: Ammon Sheas Lexicographical ExerciseSamuel Johnsons DictionaryWebsters ThirdWhich Websters Dictionary Is the Real Thing? Examples and Observations Lexicographer. A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original and detailing the signification of words.(Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755) Lumping and SplittingDictionaries are . . . based  on an oversimplification which posits that words have enumerable, listable meanings that are divisible into discrete units. Such constructs come in handy because dictionary users tend to work best with clear-cut  distinctions and categories that we like to classify into distinct, well-defined boxes.  One of the key questions the lexicographer  then faces is related to the distinction between lumping and splitting. The former term refers to the slightly different patterns of usage that are considered as a single meaning, while the latter happens when the lexicographer separates slightly different patterns of usage into distinct meanings. The burning question whether the lexicographer should apply a lumping or a splitting st rategy does not just apply to monolingual dictionaries, however. A related question for bilingual lexicographers is whether sense divisions should be based upon the source language or the target language.(Thierry Fontenelle, Bilingual Dictionaries.  The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography, ed. by  Philip Durkin. Oxford University Press, 2015) Homonymy and PolysemyA major problem for the  lexicographer is  provided by the distinction between homonymy and polysemy. We speak of homonymy when two lexemes share the same word-forms . . ..   We speak of polysemy when a single lexeme has two (or more)  distinguishable meanings. There is no generally agreed criterion for distinguishing between the two. EAR  organ of hearing and EAR  spike of corn may be treated as two distinct lexemes . . . and usually are in real dictionaries on the basis of distinct etymologies, although diachronic information should not  in principle be used to determine synchronic linguistic structure.  On the other hand, many speakers feel that an ear of corn  is called that because it resembles the ear on someones head, and implicitly treat EAR as a single polysemous lexeme. In the writing of any dictionary, a decision has to be taken as to how to distinguish between these two.(Laurie Bauer, Word. Morphology: An International Handbook on I nflection and Word-Formation, ed. by  Geert Booij et al. Walter de Gruyter, 2000) A Descriptive Approach to LanguageEven when they must make choices, lexicographers are attempting to provide a factual record of the language, not a statement about correctness of its usage. However, when people see one form highlighted in a dictionary, they interpret it as the one correct form and subsequently infer that any other form is incorrect. Furthermore, many who read and reference dictionaries take these decisions to be comprehensive and inalterable standards. In other words, even though lexicographers take a descriptive approach to language, their work is often read as prescriptive.(Susan Tamasi and Lamont Antieau, Language and Linguistic Diversity in the US: An Introduction. Routledge, 2015) A Proscriptive ApproachModern-day lexicography has produced convincing arguments in favour of a proscriptive approach (cf. Berenholtz 2003). Although it is possible to employ such an approach in printed dictionaries, it is an approach ideal for internet dictionaries. The proscriptive approach allows the lexicographer to present the user with a variety of options, e.g. different orthographic forms of a given word or different pronunciation possibilities. No single form is prescribed but the lexicographer indicates his or her preference by recommending one or more forms. By doing so the alternatives are not demonised but users get a clear indication of the form recommended by the expert.(Rufus H. Gouws, Dictionaries as Innovative Tools in a New Perspective on Standardisation. Lexicography at a Crossroads: Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Today, Lexicographical Tools Tomorrow, ed. by Henning Bergenholtz, Sandro Nielsen, and Sven Tarp. Peter Lang, 2009) Samuel Johnson on Lexicography and LanguageWhen we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay . . .. The language most likely to continue long without alteration, would be that of a nation raised a little, and but a little, above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life.(Samuel Johnson, Preface to A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755)