FINAL YEAR PROJECT THE INFUENCE OF SEMANTICS (WORDS) ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION PREPERED BY MUHAMMAD QAISER RASHEED (REG # BB-03-05-2963)

SUPERVISED BY SIR RAJA RUB NAWAZ DATE 22ND JUNE 2009 REPORT SUBMITTED TO PAF-KIET In partial fulfillment of the degree of bachelor of business administration. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES PAF-KIET
1

PROJECT APPROVAL

Project Title: Influence Of Semantics (Words) On Consumer Perception By: Muhammad Qaiser Rasheed Project Supervisor: Raja Rub Nawaz

The PAF-KIET Karachi City Campus has approved this Project, submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors/Masters of Business Administration.

Approval Committee:

_____________________ Raja Rub Nawaz (Supervisor)

________________________ Dr. Manzoor Khalidi (Dean)

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION

Date 22nd June 2009

Muhammad Qaiser Rasheed Reg # 2963

Dear Student, I am pleased to inform that you are assigned to conduct a study and prepare a research project on THE INFLUENCE OF SEMANTICS (WORDS) ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION. In this report you have to include the overview of industry and brief history of selected topic and their strategies related to the concerned subject. You will get all assistance, necessary for the information. If you find any difficulty in your way, please try to overcome those obstacles. I assure you that all possible cooperation will be offered to enable you to write the report in a good and cooperative environment. I will appreciate if you submit your findings within given time.

With Best Wishes, _____________________ Raja Rub Nawaz (Supervisor)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date 22nd June 2009 Raja Rub Nawaz Faculty Member PAF-KIET Karachi (Main Campus)

Dear Sir, I am submitting this report on THE INFLUENCE OF SEMANTICS (WORDS) ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION. As per your advice, the report includes overview of industry and literature review of the topic. Statistical analysis is used through SPSS software. I am grateful for your guidance without which this assignment could have not been completed.

Yours truly,

Muhammad Qaiser Rasheed 2963 PAF-KIET (Karachi Main Campus)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank Almighty ALLAH who guided me to the way for a bright future. I would like to acknowledge the help provided by teacher to make this project a success. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Raja Rub Nawaz, professor at PAF-KIET for his valuable guidance and support the project writing. Without his valuable comments and suggestions, the project writing could have been more difficult to complete. A special thanks to my greatest source of inspiration and encouragement from Parents, Friends and all well-wishers. Thank you for everything! I would like to thank each and everyone who supported and extended their cooperation to me in the completion of my final year project. I would also like to appreciate the cooperation I got from my class mates at PAF-KIET, who boosted my morale and encouraged me to strive for better results. Last but not the least; I thank PAF-KIET for providing me a truly inspiring and relaxed environment for studies.

Muhammad Qaiser Rasheed

Contents
Contents....................................................................................................................................6 Abstract.....................................................................................................................................7 Introduction..............................................................................................................................9 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................11 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................24 The Research Strategies.........................................................................................................25 Controlling Artifact and Bias.................................................................................................25 Sampling.................................................................................................................................25 ...............................................................................................................................................26 Sampling size..........................................................................................................................26 DATA ANALYSIS:...............................................................................................................28 A Little word about Crosstabs................................................................................................49 INTERPRETATION:.............................................................................................................51 INTERPRETATION:.............................................................................................................54 INTERPRETATION:.............................................................................................................56 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................60 Recommendation....................................................................................................................61 First of all I would like to say that there is a very wide scope of the research in this topic, because there is very less data on internet related to this topic.............................................61 Now I would be recommending that if any one takes this topic in future for the research take a large sample size which I could not because of the shortage of time. By taking a large sample size we would be able to have a big response and the data gathered would be more accurate and precise, the data collected from the respondents who understand the topic of my research that is "the influence of semantics (words) on consumer perception" will be more accurate.............................................................................................................61 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................62 Questionnaire..........................................................................................................................65

Abstract
The influence of semantic (word) on consumer perception This project is a study about whether the words that are used in the advertisement of a product influence the perception of a consumer or not. This research is important because this can increase the sell of a product and ultimately the profitability of a firm. I think, I would be finding that the semantics used in the ads can influence the perception of the consumer and this study will be suggested that it does change the perception. I conducted a survey in which I went to people and ask them to fill a questionnaire in which through the answers of that question I tried to find out that does this statement is true that the word influence the perception of the consumer. I have found that my respondent think that they do not attract towards the product by the words that are used in the ads. My results are opposite to my expectations and I found that I found that the words do not influence the perception of consumer. The paper discusses the widely shared view that it is semantics that causally runs the psyche (i.e. that cognition is essentially semantic causation). The psycho semantic view, very ably and originally developed in Jerry Fodor's latest book, Psycho semantics, is based on the notion that mental attitudes such as beliefs and desires have semantic contents essentially and have causal powers in virtue of the semantic properties of their contents.

I argue that the information attitudinized in central cognition is mentally pragmatic (because sensitive not only to facts of reference or abruptness but also to facts of memory, planning and action) and causal in virtue of precisely this property. I also discuss Fodor's naturalization of psycho semantics and try to show that its analysis of semantic aboutness 7

as a reliable mind-world correlation accounts for the conditions in which a semantic type applies or tokens successfully but not for what makes that type semantic in the first place. Fodor's analysis naturalizes the semantic, not the psychological side of psycho semantics.

Introduction

The aim of this study was to identify the underlying semantics of health consumers' questions and physicians' answers in order to analyze the semantic patterns within these texts. We manually identified semantic relationships within question-answer pairs from Ask-the-Doctor Web sites. Identification of the semantic relationship instances within the texts was based on the relationship classes and structure of the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Semantic Network. We calculated the frequency of occurrence of each semantic relationship class, and conceptual graphs were generated, joining concepts together through the semantic relationships identified. We then analyzed whether representations of physician's answers exactly matched the form of the question representations. Lastly, we examined characteristics of the answer conceptual graphs. We identified 97 semantic relationship instances in the questions and 334 instances in the answers. The most frequently identified semantic relationship in both questions and answers was brings_about (causal). We found that the semantic relationship propositions identified in answers that most frequently contain a concept also expressed in the question were: brings_about, isa, co_occurs_with, diagnoses, and treats. Using extracted semantic relationships from real-life questions and answers can produce a valuable analysis of the characteristics of these texts. This can lead to clues for creating semantic-based retrieval techniques that guide users to further information. For example, we determined that both consumers and physicians often express causative relationships and these play a key role in leading to further related concepts. CRS says that the meanings of expressions of a language or other symbol system or the contents of mental states are determined and explained by the way symbols are used in thinking. According to CRS ones understanding of aspects of ones own concepts consists in knowing how to use ones symbols and being at ease with that use. Understanding expressions in other systems may involve interpreting or translating those expressions into corresponding symbols of ones own system. Many different aspects of the way symbols are used are relevant to their meaning or content. There seem to be three main categories of uses, having to do with perceptual input, internal 9

thinking, and output in action. Information-based or indication theories that attempt to rely only on perceptual input face difficulties that put pressure on them to rely on other aspects of conceptual role. Worries about CRS include possible circularity, how to respond to Searles Chinese Room Argument, and whether there are facts about conceptual role. Whether these worries can be satisfactorily addressed is a matter of current debate.

10

LITERATURE REVIEW
Although a number scientific journals have exposed some of the misconstrued ideas about subliminal messages, recent studies are providing evidence to the mechanism behind subliminal perception and subliminal influence when dealing with visual messages. This showed support of subliminal perception, but little information regarding subliminal influence. Michelle 2007 In particular color-grapheme synesthetes showed greater connectivity between regions of the brain responsible for the perception and categorization of graphemes and color perception. The close temporal proximity of the advent of language acquisition in babies (four to six months) and the cellular apoptosis which presumably precludes synesthetic perception (three to four months) would also seem to indicate some sort of relationship between language and perception, with language somehow breaking up perception into separate sensory events. Jessica Krueger 2008 James Vicary, one of the market researchers and entrepreneurs profiled in Packard's book, claimed to have developed a machine capable of flashing such unnoticeable, "subliminal messages" within big screen movies. Vicary claimed that his subliminal messages resulted in a significant increase in sales of popcorn and coke. Subliminal or unconscious perception refers to the idea that stimuli presented below the threshold for conscious awareness can influence an individual's thoughts, feelings, or actions. The fact that the initial stimulus influences the classification of a proceeding stimulus implies that the initial stimulus has been processed unconsciously. Lauren Hellew The concept first became publicized in the 1950s, when the advertiser James Vicary claimed that flashing the words "Eat Popcorn" and "Drink Coke" between frames in a movie theater increased Coke sales by 18.1% and popcorn sales by 57.7%.

11

There is also evidence that subliminally perceived inputs can affect behavior. So far, inputs that have failed to override this "objective measure" threshold have also failed to show any impact on behavior. The most interesting experiments indicate that in some instances subliminally perceived inputs are more effective than supraliminal ones in affecting behavior. Akino Irene Yamashita UNCERTAIN: Whether Vicary's results are reproducible, and whether subliminal messages significantly affects a consumer's decision to buy a product. In an interview with Advertising Age in 1962, Vicary confessed that his original claims were a "fabrication". Subliminal messags can occur in a variety of ways: the key is to keep the perceiver's Ifunction unaware of the subliminal inputs. Propagnosia is a condition where people are unable to recognize familiar faces. Key "says that thousands of ads in major magazines have the word 'sex' and four-letter words secretly embedded in ice cubes, shadows, and backgrounds. Mridula Shrestha

CONCEPTUAL ROLE SEMANTICS

Conceptual role semantics (CRS) is the view that the meanings of expressions of a language (or other symbol system) or the contents of mental states are determined or explained by the role of the expressions or mental states in thinking. The theory can be taken to be applicable to language in the ordinary sense, to mental representations, conceived of either as symbols in a language of thought or as mental states such as beliefs or to certain other sorts of symbol systems. CRS rejects the competing idea that thoughts have intrinsic content that is prior to the use of concepts in thought. According to CRS, meaning and content derive from use, not the other way round. We propose to use the phrase conceptual role semantics or CRS in a very broad sense, according to which CRS includes any theory that holds that the content of mental states or symbols is determined by 12

any part of their role or use in thought. There is a common use of the term that is more limited. In this use, in order to count as a version of CRS, a theory must hold that the determinants of content include the role of the mental states or symbols in inference or in other purely internal mental processes. This restriction excludes information-based or indication theories of content (see Limited Versions of CRS below). By contrast, on our broader use of the term CRS, information-based or indication theories count as special versions of CRS.

Limited Versions of CRS: Indication

we discussed a variety of ways in which symbols are used. We have also mentioned that some CRS theorists propose to limit the relevant factors to perceptual input, inner mental processes, and output in the form of action. The first and third of these are concerned with relations between symbols and the world, the middle is concerned with relations of symbols to each other. We will be concerned with the more recent information-based or indication theories It is also natural to appeal to internal aspects of conceptual role to address the problem that not everything that carries information has meaning or content.

Understanding Meaning
Understanding Oneself

Popular but obscure metaphor in which basic understanding of meaning involves grasping something, as if such understanding consisted in getting Peacocke, 1999; Fodor, 2004). According to our understanding of CRS, words and other basic symbols, ones understanding of ones own meaning conceptual roles.

13

Understanding Someone Else

Some CRS theorists (Sellars, 1962; Quine, 1953, 1960; Davidson, 1973; Field, 2001) suggest that to understand the meaning of an expression built translation into an expressionbuilt from resources one does use.2 Quine, 1953; Harman, 1990). symbols meanings or contents. nothing. form e means m) in terms of translation translational accounts of meaning statements. translations into French of Nichts means nothing and Nichts is best translated into my system as nothing. Field (2001) notes that ordinary quotation often adequate treatment of meaning statements.

Meaningfulness
Claim that Nichts has no meaning and the claim that Nichts has a meaning an expression. Context will make it clear which role the italic font is playing. meaning statements. meaningfulness. If an expression e has an adequate translation into something meaningful in ones own system, e is a meaningful expressio. But even if the notion of translation provides the best account of meaning statements (of the form e means m), it does not follow that we must identify an expressions being meaningful with its having such a translation, and we should not do so, according to CRS.

Compositionality
Meaning of a compound expression is composed of the meanings of its parts Fodor and Lepore (2002) argue that CRS cannot accept such compositionality, because the use of a complex expression conceptual role, nor need it hold that the contents of complex expressions are expression is composed from the translation of its parts. Versions of CRS that accept a translational theory of meaning statements can therefore allow a form of compositionality of meaning.

14

Further Objections to CRS

According to CRS, conceptual role determines and explains content. conceptual roles such states have in thinking. Other symbols have derivative as having content. CRS denies that an explanation of conceptual role by appeal to intrinsic invoke m, the content of the symbol. relevant conceptual roles can be specified without reference to the content of the symbols. How can the conceptual roles of concepts connected conceptual roles. symbols have the relevant conceptual roles. CRS system whose elements have specifiable conceptual roles. According to CRS, understand the symbols. those symbols. relevant concepts. role in terms of intentional content, whereas CRS seeks to do things the other way round, explaining intentional content in terms of conceptual role. Chinese speaker. that capture the conceptual role of the Chinese speakers symbols. The candidate symbols that the overall conceptual role of the simulators symbols, including their not understand Chinese. the overall conceptual role of the Chinese speakers symbols. the former symbols). conceptual role of a Chinese speakers mental symbols may be that they are same contents as the Chinese speaker).

Objections that Conceptual Role Is Nonfactual

The conceptual roles of a given persons symbols are. Some symbols, for Suppose CRS says that a persons concepts have the relevant conceptual conceptual roles. CRS needs to distinguish According to CRS ones understanding of symbols of ones own system. \ CRS says that the meanings of expressions of a language or other symbol system or the contents of mental states are determined and explained by the way symbols are used in thinking. According to CRS ones understanding of aspects of ones own concepts consists in knowing how to use ones symbols and being at ease with that use. Understanding expressions in other systems may involve interpreting or translating those expressions into corresponding symbols of ones own system.

15

The Influence Of Semantics On Perception

Words often convey a lot more than the dictionary definition. For example, consider the following description of a cake. An advertisement might describe it as deliciously light and moist. This conveys a great deal of meaning. The person reading the advertisement will get an idea in their mind about what the cake tastes like, just by the use of these descriptive terms. Consider also the word loving or passionate. These can have similar meaning in the same context, but in fact they can convey very different feelings. You might describe the loving family or a passionate couple. Some other examples of words that have similar meanings, but that convey different tones and messages are cops and police, good bloke and nice man. (Consumer Behavior, Karen Webb).

DOES SEMANTICS RUN THE PSYCHE?

it must be the notion that cognition is semantic causation or, differently put, desires have essentially semantic contents, or are semantically evaluable. (This Mental attitudes have causal powers in virtue of their semantic properties. Causal powers qua semantic, or more exactly in virtue of its syntactic structure which reflects relevant semantic properties and relations. that mental attitudescause in virtue of being semantic that explains why thecognitive mind is essentially semantic and why common sense psychology is implicitly true of the semantic mind. psychology is an implicit theory of the semantic mind. ask are: Is a cognitive state causal in virtue of having semantic properties? Is semantic information (structurally, not quantitatively) information enough to causally run cognition and behavior? causation? Fodor's included, the answers to thes questions are positive. runs on semantic fuel only. semantic properties and relations involved. This is semantic causation. If all my If Fodor were right about this and his One problem is whether cognition is essentially semantic. Fodor's book) can be causal. The problems are related because, if Fodor's II. IS COGNITION ESSENTIALLY SEMANTIC? If the semantic values of its (linguistic) constituents. importance and relevance of information are pragmatic properties defined over If the The same semantic notion of constraints. Let us call semantic those 16

properties of an information correlation between an information structure and (types of) items in the world. aboutness are concepts, inputs and their distal causes. information structure tokened in the brain is semantic because it reflects in its organization the interaction of an input with concepts. This input-concepts interaction allows the information structure it tokens to covary with, and hence information in virtue of which it is causally potent in central cognition (thinking, information is rarely just semantic, and hence that mental causation itself is information structure is causally efficacious in cognition and behavior are rarely semantic. semanticity, the other the mental causation. pragmatically mental properties under semantic properties by defining the latter aboutness and says that aboutness is systematic mind-world covariation. result, semantic properties cannot be merely coextensive with nonsyntactic call) downward causal implementation. syntactic properties. physical types and laws, or constraints, then their causal powers (i.e. the property types in virtue of which they cause) are Physical. If the physical organization of physical matter. physical bottom. same is true of the semantic structures in the mind. Surely, semantic structures respect all the physical constraints). information pragmatically constrained reflect a new form of organization, the Mental form. argument. information can only be understood relationally. encode semantic information? information internally encoded by the cognitive states of the Twins does not Semantic information states reflect a type of organization, and hence have causal powers, that neural The structure and causal efficacy of semantic causal powers" and that "no property of [cognitive] states, relationally or otherwise, counts taxonomically unless it affects causal powers" (42). result, when cognitive states cause in virtue of the semantic information they encode, the Semantic causation does not capture the difference between H2O terms of the types of states which have appropriate causal powers. mind deploys types of structures whose causally efficacious information is fixed merely semantic. Since those types of structures have causal powers in virtue of properties which are other than semantic, methodological individualism requires that we taxonomize the information encoded as Mental, not Semantic.

17

At various levels of organization, such types of states encode information from the environment. neural and semantic forms of information originates in the constraints (types The semantic form is constrained to abstract (or If we the semantic properties of information ought to be the closest to the causal cognition align internal states not only to the way the world is (a semantic task) That form is Mental. Are, therefore, semantic properties and causal power attributable to the semantic content and causal potency in mentation emerges from Fodor's two, functional role semantics. III. THE NATURALIZATION OF PSYCHOSEMANTICS How should we type individuate the semantic aboutness or content of a cognitive state? By attending to its functional role, hence to its causal defended by functional role semantics. Functional role semantics holds that Fodor shows convincingly that the functional role enterprise fails Functional role semantics about mental causation, because a functional role is a causal role redescribed. But then, what plays a functional/causal role cannot normally be just a semantic causal power. Thus, a functional role semantics which is serious about mental causation cannot be serious about semantics. If functional role semantics is serious about semantics, then it cannot be serious about mental causation (hence about functional role) because, again, semantic contents do not have causal powers, mentally. semantics. The causally potent cognitive states are said to Fodor points out, rather than their contents. mental information which causally drives cognition and behavior. functional here is a mental, not a semantic role. If functional role were to determine information, it should be mental, not semantic information.

Functional role appears to determine semantic content only when the causation involved obeys constraints no higher than Semantic. When functional role (normally) determines mental content or (rarely) just semantic content, what it propositions), not the concepts themselves. The concepts are antecedently semantic aboutness. the concepts. cognitive states are about. Fodor's, in chapter 4, is the denotational way. The Fodor wants a naturalist answer. CAUSAL, more or less, says Fodor. principled output of a sophisticated causal 18

theory. a really beefy question. related notion as well, that of frame of causation. in virtue of A's type of internal structural properties. the same form. Molecules pushing other molecules around form one big causal frame. have causation across frames. across frames.) constraints operative in the two frames: the retinal information tokened by the The causation from one frame (light) cannot by itself type the right information structures in another frame (retina). causation. Learning is causation (of concepts) across frames. If the conditions on naturalization. The external stimulus (from stars) cannot type a concept ('star') not generate lots of semantic types (concepts). exploiting prior types and available typing procedures. pressuppose some prior semantic typing. The hardware typing is not itself semantic, which is a good starting point. My hardware design constrains the tokening of my mental color symbols. As Fodor notes, psychophysics does (noncircularly) naturalize the semantics of the The psychophysical naturalization of semantic content is only the first leg of Fodor's journey (112-120).

As Fodor although 'horses' and 'protons' are not psychophysical concepts, their tokens related psychophysical properties. defined relation between psychophysical concepts and tokens of real concepts. Fodor's psychophysical move (nonsemantic) hardware constraints and hardware-world correlations, and does True, Fodor warns us. tokens of theoretical concepts (protons). the gap to the semantic types or concepts. "True theories, when internalized, correlate the state exert causal control over concepts; a naturalist semantics does not need to Fodor's first naturalization move to psychophysics precisely because it allows reliable causal chains to token protosemantic types which are themselves Fodor's knowledge are concepts which evaluate the success of vision and cognition. conditions. account of vision or cognition. concept application) and an account of semantic typing (say, having concepts,

The analysis of semantic success tells us in what conditions a semantic type (a concept) applies or tokens more specifically, why it is that semantic type and not another (the concept of conditions of semantic tokening, not typing. We have to understand the type 19

(concept) before we worry in what conditions it tokens successfully or Elsewhere Fodor says, "...what 16 naturalization goes into action. Fodor's angle of analysis takes in only the route from concepts to their instances (124). In all these cases, Fodor is talking about the (sufficient) naturalized conditions for semantic success (such as concept application), NOT about the antecedent conditions of semantic typing The success of concept tokening is evidence for the concept. mechanisms and causal routes involved in concept application.

The it takes causally to apply a concept successfully. have concepts or intentionality generally, that is, types of states with aboutness. cognitive contribution to semantic success. in the form of constraints on the organization of information processing, naturalization of psychosemantics to account for the internal constraints on aboutness. 6 how question (revealing the intentional nature of cognition) matters Fodor is right to of the semantic psyche. states, etc. AND the world denotational, and the internal properties in virtue of which symbols and other cognitive states are denotational intentional. semantic = denotational + intentional. intentionality and naturalize the conditions of its semantic, indeed denotational success. naturalized conditions of its denotational success. Fodor is right about the naturalization of psychosemantics in terms of the success conditions for the application of cognitive symbols and concepts, then 19 turn out to be right about the causal potency of cognitive states qua Semantic. If the mind is essentially semantic (as Fodor assumes), and if what we syntax reflects, respects and tracks semantic relations, (ii) mental causation semantic success amounts to naturalizing psychosemantics and explaining its causal potency). RADU J. BOGDAN

20

Vagueness, Semantics, and the Language of Thought

Many-Valued Semantics
A sentence asserting that the predicate applies to the object, then, will be considered indeterminate in truth-value. With ordinary language predicates, the clear cases, clear non-cases, and borderline cases do not form precise sets. 4.5 In this type of semantics, nothing important changes if we add four, five, six or any number of truth-values to the semantics. In a typical many-valued semantics, regardless of how many truth-values are employed, the objects in the domain still fall into precise sets. Consider, for example, a six-valued semantics in which the set of truth-values consists of {0,.2,.4,.6,.8,1}. Suppose 'F' is some predicate. Again, this is uncharacteristic of vague ordinary language predicates and strongly suggests that such semantics are not appropriate as semantics for languages with vague predicates.4> For this reason, these semantics likewise seem inappropriate for the purposes of the Tarskian analogy. For example, in many-valued semantics a disjunction typically takes the maximum value of its disjuncts. In summary, then, a well-defined many-valued semantics will not be of interest because it will not be appropriate as a semantics for a language with vague predicates, and an ill-defined many-valued semantics will not have the soundness result needed to be of interest.

Fuzzy Logic and other Infinite-Valued Semantics

needed to be of interest in this context, for infinite-valued semantics. Although nothing in the preceding discussion hinged on whether the range of truth-values was finite or infinite, 21

given the recent interest in fuzzy logic and other infinite-valued semantics, a few extra words might be in order about these sorts of systems. Such semantics might include either the older infinite-valued systems, such as that of Lukasiewicz and Tarski (1930), or the fuzzy logics discussed in, for example, Zadeh (1975). There is a straightforward reason why such semantics are not interesting with respect to the Tarskian analogy.

Supervaluation Semantics
6.1 The only other semantics that has been argued to be appropriate for languages with vague predicates is supervaluation (SV) semantics. 6.2 On Fine's SV semantics, a vague sentence--that is, a sentence containing vague predicates--is true if that sentence is true on every way of making its vague predicates completely precise, false if it is false on every way of making the vague predicates completely precise, and the truth-value of the sentence is indeterminate (or undefined) otherwise. 6.3 The problem with SV semantics is in its appeal (in the truth-conditions) to making predicates completely precise. This is not just an idle part of Fine's SV semantics, for the consistency result depends upon the assumption that predicates can be made completely precise. To see this, suppose we have a sentence whose predicates cannot be made completely precise. Given the truth-conditions for Fine's SV semantics, for that sentence not to be true there must be a way of making the predicates completely precise which results in the sentence not being true. But since the predicates cannot be made completely precise, on SV semantics the sentence comes out true. So if predicates cannot be made completely precise, then Fine's SV semantics is inconsistent and hence not of interest for our purposes.8> 6.4 It is worth noting that this inconsistency will arise if even a single predicate cannot be made completely precise. We do, of course, regularly make predicates more precise. 6.6 It is straightforward enough to modify SV semantics to remove the assumption that predicates can be made completely precise, thereby bringing SV semantics more in line with the characteristics of ordinary predicates. 6.7 However, such a semantics can no longer appeal to the classical soundness result. So while this modified SV semantics avoids the major problem with Fine-style SV semantics, it does so at the cost of losing the soundness result to which Fine-style SV semantics appealed. Richard DeWitt 1993 22

23

METHODOLOGY

FORMULATING A RESEARCH PROBLEM

Does the semantics (words) use in advertisement of a product helps to alter the perception of the consumer towards the product? Semantics used in the advertisements of a product are use to attract consumers and to alter the perception of the product towards the product. Researchers claim that words and other symbols influence the part of brain which is responsible for making the perception. Marketers use it as a strategy nowadays, they use such words in their ads which attract the consumer or at least make them to see the advertisement. Good perception towards a product make a consumer to take decision about the product while consumer is shopping and the product comes in front of once sight.

CREATING HYPOTHESES
There is no hypotheses needed for my research study.

CHOOSING VARIABLES TO STUDY Variables

Dependent variable

Perception of the consumer is the dependent variable in this study.

24

Independent variable

Visual message Language Meaning of the expression Words Symbols

The Research Strategies

The research strategy used in this study is observational research strategy which is more suitable for this project. The data is been collected through questionnaire on the scale of 1-5 rating in which 1 is highly agree to 5 is highly disagree.

Controlling Artifact and Bias

To prevent from the artifacts in this study I have very carefully chosen the sample size and conducted the research with the people who could respond well enough on this topic.

Sampling
I will be using the random sampling in my project for this research study.

25

Sampling size
The sample size for my research will be calculated below and collected the information from the precise minimum sample size. The calculation assumes that my data will be collected from all cases in the sample and is based on. I need to the confidence level estimate is accurate. How accurate the estimate needs to be so the margin of error that can be prevent. The proportion of responses I expect to have some particular opinion about the perception. Once we have the information substitute into the formula n= p% x q% x [z/e]2

Where n is the minimum required sample size

p% = proportion belonging to the specified category q% = proportion not belonging to the specified category z = z value corresponding to the level of confidence required (95%=1.96) e% = margin of error required.

The Logic Of Selecting The P% As The Proportion Belong To Specified The Opinion
Total Karachi households My selected areas among Karachi Gulshan-e-iqbal town 26 = = 45000 millions (approx) 4 towns

North nazimabad town Korangi town Gul Burg town = = = 749,000 in all 4 areas 4 people living in one

Selected areas estimated households In a single household on average has (estimated) Total selected households population 1/4th of above population is adult,

2,996,000. (4 x 749,000)

Aware and, educated to fill the questionnaire without children = 749,582. (2,996,000 x 0.25)

As the above population is too large for me to cover within the timeframe and budget of my project so I resort to further fine-tuning (scale-down) of the population. My selected/desired percentage = 0.4% (this is NOT 4%) (On convenience) So, logical population for me = 2,996. (749,000 x 0.004)

:P% DEFINED
Now desired p% from Logical population p% = 10%

SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION

n=minimum sample size P%=10%

27

q%=90% z=1.96 (level of confidence) e%=5% (tolerated margin of error) n n n n n = = = = = p% 10 10 138.6 140 (approx). x x x q% 90 90 x x x [z/e%]2 [1.96/5]2 0.154

DATA ANALYSIS:
Frequencies Interpretation I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product

Statistics I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.98 Std. Deviation 1.363

28

I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product Frequency 23 26 23 31 19 122 Percent 18.9 21.3 18.9 25.4 15.6 100.0 Valid Percent 18.9 21.3 18.9 25.4 15.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.9 40.2 59.0 84.4 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product

30

20

Percent
10 0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product

INTERPRETATION:

29

The above tables show the statistical result that more than 25% of the respondents do not remember the words that are used in the ads whereas almost 17% are highly disagree that they remember the words. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

30

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product

Statistics I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.95 Std. Deviation 1.448

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product Frequency 26 28 18 26 24 122 Percent 21.3 23.0 14.8 21.3 19.7 100.0 Valid Percent 21.3 23.0 14.8 21.3 19.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 21.3 44.3 59.0 80.3 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

31

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product

25

20

Percent

15

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 22% of the respondents are just agree with that statement that the language use in the ad make them buy that product whereas almost 15% are neither agree nor disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

32

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good

Statistics I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 3.04 Std. Deviation 1.422

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good Frequency 20 32 21 21 28 122 Percent 16.4 26.2 17.2 17.2 23.0 100.0 Valid Percent 16.4 26.2 17.2 17.2 23.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 16.4 42.6 59.8 77.0 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

33

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good

30

20

Percent
10 0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 26% of the respondents are just agree that if thee visual message is good it means that the product is also good whereas almost 16% are highly agree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

34

I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product

Statistics I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.91 Std. Deviation 1.443

I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product Frequency 29 23 22 26 22 122 Percent 23.8 18.9 18.0 21.3 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 23.8 18.9 18.0 21.3 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 23.8 42.6 60.7 82.0 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

35

I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product
25

20

Percent

15

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 23% of the respondents are highly agree that words are more important than the visuals used in ads whereas almost 17% are highly disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

36

It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is used in the ad of a product to buy that product

Statistics It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is used in the ad of a product to buy that product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 3.09 Std. Deviation 1.391

It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is used in the ad of a product to buy that product Frequency 22 23 22 32 23 122 Percent 18.0 18.9 18.0 26.2 18.9 100.0 Valid Percent 18.0 18.9 18.0 26.2 18.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 36.9 54.9 81.1 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

37

It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is used in the ad of a product to buy that product
30

20

Percent
10 0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is used in the ad of a product to buy that product

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 28% of the respondents are disagree which means that the meaning of the expressions to get is not important for them whereas almost 18% are highly agree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

38

The symbols used in the ad attracts me

Statistics The symbols used in the ad attracts me N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.89 Std. Deviation 1.392

The symbols used in the ad attracts me Frequency 24 31 24 21 22 122 Percent 19.7 25.4 19.7 17.2 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 19.7 25.4 19.7 17.2 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 19.7 45.1 64.8 82.0 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

39

The symbols used in the ad attracts me

30

20

Percent
10 0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

The symbols used in the ad attracts me

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 26% of the respondents are just agree that the symbols that are use in the ads attract them whereas almost 17% are disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

40

Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product

Statistics Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.99 Std. Deviation 1.405

Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product Frequency 25 23 24 28 22 122 Percent 20.5 18.9 19.7 23.0 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 20.5 18.9 19.7 23.0 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 20.5 39.3 59.0 82.0 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

41

Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product

25

20

Percent

15

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 23% of the respondents are feel lost when they want to recall the words used in ads whereas almost 18% are highly disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

42

Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often

Statistics Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.98 Std. Deviation 1.480

Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often Frequency 27 24 25 17 29 122 Percent 22.1 19.7 20.5 13.9 23.8 100.0 Valid Percent 22.1 19.7 20.5 13.9 23.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 22.1 41.8 62.3 76.2 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

43

Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often

25

20

Percent

15

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 24% of the respondents get motivated to buy the products often by the words that are used in the ads whereas almost 14% are disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

44

Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product

Statistics Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 2.88 Std. Deviation 1.423

Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product Frequency 23 39 13 24 23 122 Percent 18.9 32.0 10.7 19.7 18.9 100.0 Valid Percent 18.9 32.0 10.7 19.7 18.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.9 50.8 61.5 81.1 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

45

Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product

40

30

Percent

20

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 31% of the respondents are just agree that the expressions make them understand and buy a product whereas almost 10% are neither agree nor disagree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

46

I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end

Statistics I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end N Valid 122 Missing 0 Mean 3.21 Std. Deviation 1.433

I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end Frequency 22 18 24 28 30 122 Percent 18.0 14.8 19.7 23.0 24.6 100.0 Valid Percent 18.0 14.8 19.7 23.0 24.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 32.8 52.5 75.4 100.0

Valid

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

47

I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end
25

20

Percent

15

10

0 Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show the statistical result that more than 23% of the respondents are highly disagree that words sell whereas almost 14% are just agree. Further statistics could easily be interpreted by studying deeper.

48

A Little word about Crosstabs

The Crosstabs procedure forms two-way and multiway tables and provides a variety of tests and measures of association for two-way tables. The structure of the table and whether categories are ordered determine what test or measure to use. Crosstabs statistics and measures of association are computed for two-way tables only. If you specify a row, a column, and a layer factor (control variable), the Crosstabs procedure forms one panel of associated statistics and measures for each value of the layer factor (or a combination of values for two or more control variables). For example, if gender is a layer factor for a table of married (yes, no) against life (is life exciting, routine, or dull), the results for a two-way table for the females are computed separately from those for the males and printed as panels following one another. Statistics and measures of association. Pearson chi-square, likelihood-ratio chi-square, linear-by-linear association test, Fishers exact test, Yates corrected chi-square, Pearsons r, Spearmans rho, contingency coefficient, phi, Cramrs V. Data. To define the categories of each table variable, use values of a numeric or short string (eight or fewer characters) variable. For example, for gender, you could code the data as 1 and 2 or as male and female. Assumptions. Some statistics and measures assume ordered categories (ordinal data) or quantitative values (interval or ratio data), as discussed in the section on statistics. Others are valid when the table variables have unordered categories (nominal data). For the chisquare-based statistics (phi, Cramrs V, and contingency coefficient), the data should be a random sample from a multinomial distribution.

49

Crosstabs Interpretation

Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent

N I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product * I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product

Valid Percent

Total Percent

122

100.0%

.0%

122

100.0%

I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product * I think the language use in the ad make a cons Crosstabulation

I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

Total

Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected

Count Count Count Count Count Count

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy tha Niether Agree Highly Agree Just Agree Nor Disagree Disagree D 3 9 5 4 4.9 5.3 3.4 4.9 4 4 5 6 5.5 6.0 3.8 5.5 6 4 2 6 4.9 5.3 3.4 4.9 6 8 4 6 6.6 7.1 4.6 6.6 7 3 2 4 4.0 4.4 2.8 4.0 26 28 18 26 26.0 28.0 18.0 26.0

50

Chi-Square Tests Value 12.662a 12.426 .141 122 df 16 16 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .697 .714 .708

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 15 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.80.

Symmetric Measures Value .322 .161 122 Approx. Sig. .697 .697

Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases

Phi Cramer's V

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

INTERPRETATION:
The statistics discussed here are designed to analyze two nominal or dichotomous variables. Chi-square (2) or phi/Cramers V are good choices for statistics while analyzing two nominal variables. Chi-square requires a relatively large sample size because the expected counts in 80% cells should be greater than 5. Fishers exact test for 2x2 crosstabs should be reported instead of chi-square for small samples. Chi-square and the Fishers exact test provide similar information about relationships among variables; however, they only tell us whether the relationship is statistically significant. They do not tell the effect size (i.e. the strength of the relationship). Phi and Cramers V provide a test of statistical significance and also provide information about the strength of the association between the two variables and can be used as a 51

measure of the effect size. If there is a 2x2 cross tabulation, phi is the appropriate statistic. For larger crosstabs (larger than 2x2), Cramers V is used.

Results:
Chi-square Tests table above is used to determine there is a statistically significant relationship between two dichotomous nominal variables. Pearson Chi-Square was used for small samples or Fishers Exact Test was used to interpret the results of the test. They are NOT statistically significant (p > 0.05), which indicates that the two variables under discussion are not independent to each other and both of them are correlated or have an influence to each other. The Symmetric Measures table as shown above provides the strength of relationship or effect size. The negative sign does not mean anything here because it shows the direction of the association or effect size of variable from variable to another. However, low values here indicate weak association. So on the basis of above explanation and results output tables, if there would have been any hypothesis relating to these variables would have been presented as null hypothesis. It should have been proven that Null Hypothesis is rejected which means that the relationship or association does exist among the two variables but it is also a fact highlighted by the test results that the association however among them is weak.

52

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent

N I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good * I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product

Valid Percent

Total Percent

122

100.0%

.0%

122

100.0%

I think the good visual message means that th e product would also be good * I think sometimes words are more important than visu als in the ad of a product Crosstabulation I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product Niether Agree Highly Highly Agree Just Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree Total 2 4 5 5 4 20 Count 4.8 3.8 3.6 4.3 3.6 20.0 8 6 4 9 5 32 Count 7.6 6.0 5.8 6.8 5.8 32.0 7 5 5 3 1 21 Count 5.0 4.0 3.8 4.5 3.8 21.0 5 7 2 4 3 21 Count 5.0 4.0 3.8 4.5 3.8 21.0 7 1 6 5 9 28 Count 6.7 5.3 5.0 6.0 5.0 28.0 29 23 22 26 22 122 Count 29.0 23.0 22.0 26.0 22.0 122.0

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good

Highly Agree

Total

Count Expected Just Agree Count Expected Niether Agree Count Nor Disagree Expected Disagree Count Expected Highly Disagree Count Expected Count Expected

Chi-Square Tests Value 17.996a 20.085 .012 122 df 16 16 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .324 .216 .914

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 15 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.61.

53

Symmetric Measures Value .384 .192 122 Approx. Sig. .324 .324

Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases

Phi Cramer's V

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

INTERPRETATION:
The statistics discussed here are designed to analyze two nominal or dichotomous variables. Chi-square (2) or phi/Cramers V are good choices for statistics while analyzing two nominal variables. Chi-square requires a relatively large sample size because the expected counts in 80% cells should be greater than 5. Fishers exact test for 2x2 crosstabs should be reported instead of chi-square for small samples. Chi-square and the Fishers exact test provide similar information about relationships among variables; however, they only tell us whether the relationship is statistically significant. They do not tell the effect size (i.e. the strength of the relationship). Phi and Cramers V provide a test of statistical significance and also provide information about the strength of the association between the two variables and can be used as a measure of the effect size. If there is a 2x2 cross tabulation, phi is the appropriate statistic. For larger crosstabs (larger than 2x2), Cramers V is used.

Results:
Chi-square Tests table above is used to determine there is a statistically significant relationship between two dichotomous nominal variables. Pearson Chi-Square was used for small samples or Fishers Exact Test was used to interpret the results of the test. They 54

are NOT statistically significant (p > 0.05), which indicates that the two variables under discussion are not independent to each other and both of them are correlated or have an influence to each other. The Symmetric Measures table as shown above provides the strength of relationship or effect size. The negative sign does not mean anything here because it shows the direction of the association or effect size of variable from variable to another. However, low values here indicate weak association. So on the basis of above explanation and results output tables, if there would have been any hypothesis relating to these variables would have been presented as null hypothesis. It should have been proven that Null Hypothesis is rejected which means that the relationship or association does exist among the two variables but it is also a fact highlighted by the test results that the association however among them is weak.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent

N I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good * The symbols used in the ad attracts me

Valid Percent

Total Percent

122

100.0%

.0%

122

100.0%

55

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good * The symbols used in the ad attracts me Crosstabulation The symbols used in the ad attracts me Niether Agree Highly Agree Just Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Count 4 5 7 2 Expected Count 3.9 5.1 3.9 3.4 Count 4 7 5 8 Expected Count 6.3 8.1 6.3 5.5 Count 6 3 4 3 Expected Count 4.1 5.3 4.1 3.6 Count 5 8 3 4 Expected Count 4.1 5.3 4.1 3.6 Count 5 8 5 4 Expected Count 5.5 7.1 5.5 4.8 Count 24 31 24 21 Expected Count 24.0 31.0 24.0 21.0

I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good

Highly Agree Just Agree Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree

Total

Highly Disagree 2 3.6 8 5.8 5 3.8 1 3.8 6 5.0 22 22.0

Total 20 20.0 32 32.0 21 21.0 21 21.0 28 28.0 122 122.0

Chi-Square Tests Value 13.763a 14.235 .229 122 df 16 16 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .616 .581 .632

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 13 cells (52.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.44.

Symmetric Measures Value .336 .168 122 Approx. Sig. .616 .616

Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases

Phi Cramer's V

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

INTERPRETATION:
The statistics discussed here are designed to analyze two nominal or dichotomous variables. Chi-square (2) or phi/Cramers V are good choices for statistics while analyzing two nominal variables. 56

Chi-square requires a relatively large sample size because the expected counts in 80% cells should be greater than 5. Fishers exact test for 2x2 crosstabs should be reported instead of chi-square for small samples. Chi-square and the Fishers exact test provide similar information about relationships among variables; however, they only tell us whether the relationship is statistically significant. They do not tell the effect size (i.e. the strength of the relationship). Phi and Cramers V provide a test of statistical significance and also provide information about the strength of the association between the two variables and can be used as a measure of the effect size. If there is a 2x2 cross tabulation, phi is the appropriate statistic. For larger crosstabs (larger than 2x2), Cramers V is used.

Results:
Chi-square Tests table above is used to determine there is a statistically significant relationship between two dichotomous nominal variables. Pearson Chi-Square was used for small samples or Fishers Exact Test was used to interpret the results of the test. They are NOT statistically significant (p > 0.05), which indicates that the two variables under discussion are not independent to each other and both of them are correlated or have an influence to each other. The Symmetric Measures table as shown above provides the strength of relationship or effect size. The negative sign does not mean anything here because it shows the direction of the association or effect size of variable from variable to another. However, low values here indicate weak association. So on the basis of above explanation and results output tables, if there would have been any hypothesis relating to these variables would have been presented as null hypothesis. It should have been proven that Null Hypothesis is rejected which means that the relationship or association does exist among the two variables but it is also a fact highlighted by the test results that the association however among them is weak.

57

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary Cases Missing N Percent

N I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product * The symbols used in the ad attracts me

Valid Percent

Total Percent

122

100.0%

.0%

122

100.0%

I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product * The symbols used in the ad attracts me Crosstabulation The symbols used in the ad attracts me Niether Agree Just Agree Nor Disagree Disagree 10 2 5 6.6 5.1 4.5 6 7 3 7.1 5.5 4.8 7 3 4 4.6 3.5 3.1 1 9 5 6.6 5.1 4.5 7 3 4 6.1 4.7 4.1 31 24 21 31.0 24.0 21.0

I think the language Highly Agree use in the ad make a consumer buy that Just Agree product Niether Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Highly Disagree Total

Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected Count Expected

Count Count Count Count Count Count

Highly Agree 3 5.1 8 5.5 2 3.5 7 5.1 4 4.7 24 24.0

Highly Disagree 6 4.7 4 5.0 2 3.2 4 4.7 6 4.3 22 22.0

Total 26 26.0 28 28.0 18 18.0 26 26.0 24 24.0 122 122.0

Chi-Square Tests Value 20.422a 22.932 .141 122 df 16 16 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .202 .116 .708

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 14 cells (56.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.10.

58

Symmetric Measures Value .409 .205 122 Approx. Sig. .202 .202

Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases

Phi Cramer's V

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

59

Conclusion

The conclusion of this study in which we tried to find out that is there influence of semantics on consumer perception or not, the results shows that mostly people says that they do not take the words that are use in the advertisement of a product in to account. People are not able to recall the words use in the advertisement of a product and not majority of the people get the meaning of the expressions that are use the ads. Although it is interesting to study about the perception of the consumer but unfortunately I did not found the positive results in my research. Big multinationals are conducting research on this aspect and trying to find out the impact of the words on consumer perception. But many things in advertisements and in other screen plays alter the perception pf the people without being noticed as the subliminal messages do, subliminal message are the visual message but it do not come in to the notice of the people but the part of the brain which is responsible for the perception making notice it and make the person to do the act. Actually words, symbols, visuals etc, alter the perception of the consumer but because it does not come into the notice of a person thats why people deny that these things do not attract them or do not alter there perception. International advertising and international sponsorship respectively influence the local target group in different ways, but they also affect international brand in that they have an impact on brand image and brand equity. Moreover, depending on a persons age, consumers view brands differently, and thus have an effect on international brand alone, but also in combination with international advertisement and international sponsorship. Together, these factors influence the way in which a brand is perceived, and consequently influence consumer preferences.

60

Recommendation

First of all I would like to say that there is a very wide scope of the research in this topic, because there is very less data on internet related to this topic.

Now I would be recommending that if any one takes this topic in future for the research take a large sample size which I could not because of the shortage of time. By taking a large sample size we would be able to have a big response and the data gathered would be more accurate and precise, the data collected from the respondents who understand the topic of my research that is "the influence of semantics (words) on consumer perception" will be more accurate.

61

REFERENCES

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125448 1 The MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, 1987. 20 2 See my "Fodor's Representations", Cognition and Brain Theory, 6, 2 (1983) 237-249; and "Mental Attitudes and Common Sense Psychology: The Case Against Elimination", Nous, 22, 3 (1988) 369-398. 3 For details, I refer the reader to two solid books on the pragmatics of cognition: D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance, Harvard UP, 1987; and John Holland et al., Induction, The MIT Press, 1986. See also my "Manufacture of Belief" in Bogdan (ed), Belief, Oxford UP, 1986. 4 Fodor's earlier book, with The MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1983. 5 'Empirical metaphysics' is Fodor's term for the nature of his account in this book (in correspondence). 6 I develop these points in "Information and Semantic Cognition", Mind and Language, 3, 2 (1988) 81-122, and "Guidance to Goal: The Roots of Teleosemantics", forthcoming. 7 I want to thank Jerry Fodor and Graeme Forbes for good, perceptive and helpful comments on an earlier draft. DOES SEMANTICS RUN THE PSYCHE? Radu J. Bogdan Alston, William (1967). Vagueness. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Vol. 8. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co. Block, Ned (1990). The computer model of the mind. In D. Osherson & E. Smith Thinking, Cambridge: MIT Press. Dennett, Daniel (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 27-51. DeWitt, Richard (1992). Remarks on the current status of the sorites paradox. Journal of Philosophical Research, 17, 93-118. 62

Dummett, Michael (1975). Wang's paradox. Synthese, 30, 301-324. Fine, Kit (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30, 265-300. Fodor, Jerry (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Fodor, Jerry (1981). Representations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Fodor, Jerry (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Haugeland, John (Ed.) (1981). Mind design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lukasiewicz, Jan & Tarski, Alfred (1930). Investigations into the sentential calculus. In L. Borkowski (Ed.) Jan Lukasiewicz: Selected works. North Holland. Morgan, C. G. & Pelletier, F. J. (1977). Some notes concerning fuzzy logics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 79-97. Pinkal, Manfred (1983). Toward a semantics of precization. In Ballmer & Pinkal (Eds.) Approaching vagueness. North-Holland. Rescher, Nicholas (1969). Many-valued logic. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Scarpellini, B. (1962). Die Nichtaxiomatisierbarkeit des unendlichwertigen Praedikatenkalkuls von Lukasiewicz. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27, 159-170. Sorensen, Roy (1991). Vagueness within the language of thought. The Philosophical Quarterly, 41, 389-413. van Fraassen, Bas C. (1968). Presuppositions, implications and self-reference. Journal of Philosophy, 65. Zadeh, Lotfi (1975). Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese, 30, 407-428. MARK GREENBERG GILBERT HARMAN Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Research Paper No. 05-24 This paper may be downloaded without charge at: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=800187 Conceptual Role Semantics Mark Greenberg, UCLA and Gilbert Harman, Princeton University Draft as of 9/1/2005 Submitted by michelle on Fri, 05/04/2007 - 3:01pm. 63

Submitted by Jessica Krueger on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 5:53pm.

64

Questionnaire
Dear Respondent! This questionnaire is part of the partial fulfillment of my BBA research project. The topic of my research is The influence of semantics on consumer perception. It is requested that kindly fill the questionnaire to your best knowledge and spirit so that I would be able to complete my task. Confidentiality would be taken care of in the process. Thank you, Muhammad Qaiser Rasheed. BBA (PAF-KIET) SCALE: 1 Highly Agree 2 Just Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Highly Disagree

# 1 2 3 4

STATEMENTS I usually remember the words that are used in the ad of a product. I think the language use in the ad make a consumer buy that product. I think the good visual message means that the product would also be good. I think sometimes words are more important than visuals in the ad of a product.

RATINGS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

65

5 6 7 8 9 10

It is important to get the meaning of the expression that is use in the ad of a product to buy that product. The symbols used in the ad attract me. Sometime I feel lost when I want to recall the words used in an ad of a product. Words in any ad motivate me to buy that product often. Expression in words helps me to understand and ultimately buy a product. I believe a picture is worth thousand words but words are actually that sell at the end.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

66