Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Jennifer Lawrence analysis

What are the important contextual features of this text?

The context of this text is Jennifer Lawrence's straight talking approach to respond to the news that Sony had (what was) private information leaked, consequent to a hacking scandal. The main 'talking point' and controversial issue following the leak of private information was the revealing of the wages of actors in a film that Jennifer Lawrence was a star in. The problem was that Jennifer Lawrence, contrary to her leading role, and the other female actors were found to have earned considerably less than their male counterparts, understandably causing dispute, and a reply from Jennifer Lawrence on her Facebook page, possibly an unexpected one. The reply was fuelled by the shocking pay difference of the males and females involved, and from the post it is clear to see that the men seemingly earned a substantial amount compared to the females starring in the film; she was particularly unimpressed with this news, occasionally swearing and overall having a seemingly angry tone to the text.

Comment on the 'male' and 'female' language features in this text. What is their effect on the reader?

In contrast to the 'deficit' model of Robin Lakoff, stating in a round about manner that males and females talk differently ("male language is the norm, female language is deficient"), Jennifer Lawrence uses features of both male and female language. When talking about hopefully not angering anyone, where she uses the phrase "piss anyone off" which could actually be classed as a male aspect of language, she uses the expression "fingers crossed". This could be interpreted to be used to show she has feelings for her fans and anyone reading her thoughts, relating to the stereotype that women are more emotional, or this could be used as a type of empty adjective to soften her phrase of 'pissing anyone off'. The reader may interpret this in either of those ways as it is quite possible that she wants to make sure no one is greatly offended by what she may say, or the reader may think of this as slight sarcasm as she seems understandably angry at the scenario. When using so called feminine language, she uses emotional language, such as not wanting to come across as being "spoiled", and an "adorable" way to show her opinion, backing up Lakoff's idea that women use more compassionate and empathetic language. She also backs up Lakoff's theory that men try to dominate conversations by stating that the males in the film were "fierce" when negotiating. Stating that women would be classed as a "brat" when negotiating shows that there is still a slight gender inequality in modern day.
Apart from phases in the text where she uses sophisticated and calm language associated with female's vocabulary, the reader would assume that, if they didn't know who wrote the piece, this was a male post due to the angered tone and strong language used which is less frequently associated with female language compared to males, such as "I fucking forgot", and the stern phrase "Fuck that". The use of the word "fucking" in the first example acts as an intensifier, and a word that is generally, according to Lakoff, a male propensity of language. This has an impact on the reader as they may be more surprised to see this language coming from a female, although they may understand because of the context. This backs up Deborah Cameron's view that men and women do not use language differently

Do you agree with her conclusion? Justify your answer making reference to the language and gender theories we have looked at in class.

I agree with her conclusion, as her overall point to it is that men can use their dominant stature, relating to Lakoff's dominance model, to get what they want and are not questioned over that, possibly even applauded for it, compared to women who may not take that approach and may even be worried about coming across rude when trying to negotiate a better deal, like Jennifer Lawrence in this case, and if they do they come across as "spoiled brats".

No comments:

Post a Comment