FIFA Wikipedia website
FIFA article
In the Daily Mail article, the writer uses the personified verb phrase "brought to its knees" in the headline to inform the implied reader, who are interested football fans, that the world governing body of football (FIFA) have been caught out in a 'corruption scandal'; the plural personified noun "knees" additionally emphasises how much of an impact this will have on the organisation. Because the article is an online tabloid, the writer uses the fact it is slightly informal as an affordance to attract the audience to the article from wherever they may be browsing the internet from. In addition to this, the writer uses the controversial rhetorical interrogative "Isn't an ethics committee at FIFA a contradiction in terms?" This affordance furtherly engage with the reader and make them think more about what the article is stating, keeping them hooked to the article. Because of it being an online tabloid, the reader may expect this. The fact that the contraction "isn't" is used signifies that the question may be a tag question to get the reader involved, as the formal use of the interrogative would just start with 'is...'. Despite the fact that the website is based on the same topic, the grammar used is very much more formal, using simple and complex sentences throughout, both acting as ways to keep the reader informed in the most simple way possible whilst also giving more in depth information. Furthermore, most sentences start with the preposition 'in' for example "in December 2010" "In November 2013". Conversely to the Daily Mail article, this website shows very little sign of using strategies to keep the reader fully interested as they potentially know that the visitors of this website would have looked on the website by choice.
The graphological features of the article relate to the fact it is only a tabloid and therefore use multi-modal effects such as multiple images throughout to keep the reader engaged, and use a mix of simple and more 'advanced' language under the captions such as "embroiled and embattled". Although the Wikipedia page informing the similar idealised reader (possibly looking for a more in-depth analysis of the incident) does use a hint of multi-modal effects such as quotes to add a spoken element to the text, it uses very simple orthographical features with simple font sizes and styles throughout, compared to the article which may keep changing its orthographic features to keep the reader focused and attracted to different parts of the article as they may just be browsing the web, compared to readers looking at a Wikipedia page who may have set out to gather information before hand. Although the font styles stay similar throughout, the website uses similar typographical features which are aimed to keep the reader on the webpage such as making hyperlinks; this is an affordance the website uses to keep the reader on the website, likewise do the Daily Mail with links to other articles all around the main article.
Friday, 11 March 2016
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Cambridge Elevate work - PEE
"We're not all young thugs" - Text 13T
Because the writer from the Sunday Express wants to inform older generations that not all teenagers are tearaways who "cause trouble", they immediately use negative language towards their target audience, labelling that everyone who judges the young are "scaremongering". This derogatory dynamic verb from the lexical field of fear implies that in fact the people judging are in fact wrong, as it is included in the imperative "this scaremongering must stop". The modal auxiliary verb 'must' suggests that it is an urgency that the way teenagers are being portrayed must come to an end before it possibly becomes the 'norm' that teenagers can be described as young "thugs" which is a very strong adjective relating to violence and crime, which a whole generation should certainly not be labelled as.
Furthermore, the writer goes on to state that Britain is "in the midst of an education epidemic", and schools are "forgetting to teach the difference between right and wrong". Although the reader may believe this is an excuse for some potentially wrong actions of teenagers, they are stating that the young generation are being neglected in terms of education, through the verb phrase "forgetting to teach" using the dynamic verb "forgetting" to show the failure to teach such a simple aspect of right and wrong' in this 'so called' "epidemic". This powerful post modifying adjective was used to furtherly persuade the reader that Britain is in a bad state when it comes to educating the young.
In addition to this, the writer links the unnecessary scaremongering to a scenario by using a noun phrase with relatable hyperbole, "I wear a hoodie when it's cold... does not mean I am a knife-wielding criminal". This suggests the extremes of which teenagers are thought as, purely based on an item of clothing which a small minority of troublemakers wear; this has an effect on the reader as, although they may interpret that as exaggerated and slightly humerous, in fact this declarative shows just how wrongly misinterpreted teenagers are.
Towards the end of the extract, the writer uses the tongue in cheek verb phrase "believe it or not" when discussing teenagers' views on 'politics and other issues'. This phrase is followed by the adverb "actually"; both of these frameworks imply that it may be usually ludicrous for older generations to believe that teenagers have interests in such issues, relating to the overall purpose of the text to show that teenagers aren't all 'thugs' and interested in crime and uneducated issues, hence the need for the term 'believe it or not'.
Because the writer from the Sunday Express wants to inform older generations that not all teenagers are tearaways who "cause trouble", they immediately use negative language towards their target audience, labelling that everyone who judges the young are "scaremongering". This derogatory dynamic verb from the lexical field of fear implies that in fact the people judging are in fact wrong, as it is included in the imperative "this scaremongering must stop". The modal auxiliary verb 'must' suggests that it is an urgency that the way teenagers are being portrayed must come to an end before it possibly becomes the 'norm' that teenagers can be described as young "thugs" which is a very strong adjective relating to violence and crime, which a whole generation should certainly not be labelled as.
Furthermore, the writer goes on to state that Britain is "in the midst of an education epidemic", and schools are "forgetting to teach the difference between right and wrong". Although the reader may believe this is an excuse for some potentially wrong actions of teenagers, they are stating that the young generation are being neglected in terms of education, through the verb phrase "forgetting to teach" using the dynamic verb "forgetting" to show the failure to teach such a simple aspect of right and wrong' in this 'so called' "epidemic". This powerful post modifying adjective was used to furtherly persuade the reader that Britain is in a bad state when it comes to educating the young.
In addition to this, the writer links the unnecessary scaremongering to a scenario by using a noun phrase with relatable hyperbole, "I wear a hoodie when it's cold... does not mean I am a knife-wielding criminal". This suggests the extremes of which teenagers are thought as, purely based on an item of clothing which a small minority of troublemakers wear; this has an effect on the reader as, although they may interpret that as exaggerated and slightly humerous, in fact this declarative shows just how wrongly misinterpreted teenagers are.
Towards the end of the extract, the writer uses the tongue in cheek verb phrase "believe it or not" when discussing teenagers' views on 'politics and other issues'. This phrase is followed by the adverb "actually"; both of these frameworks imply that it may be usually ludicrous for older generations to believe that teenagers have interests in such issues, relating to the overall purpose of the text to show that teenagers aren't all 'thugs' and interested in crime and uneducated issues, hence the need for the term 'believe it or not'.
Thursday, 3 March 2016
Fair trade - Comparison of two texts
Comparison of the two texts
Text 1
Text 2
In text 1, one of the first few sentences states, "Uncover to your class how Fairtrade is helping to break the cycle of poverty..." Belonging to the lexical field of assistance and help, the strong dynamic verb of 'helping' relays a message to the reader that the company are doing all they can to help poor farmers in the developing countries; the fact that it is an imperative shows that they want the message to be spread of their good work indicating that they are proud of what they are doing, and the dynamic verb 'uncover' persuades the reader to believe that if the help was to be uncovered it may be an interesting, motivating and appealing subject to talk about. Although text 2 has the same theme as text 1 about the work of Fairtrade, their representation of the company diverges extremely, as in their headline Fairtrade "fails to help poor farmers" the powerful dynamic verb 'fails' indicates to the reader that Fairtrade may not have put in maximum effort to help change the farmers lives who are described by the adjective as 'poor' which may further emphasise to the reader that the company are not trying hard enough or even 'bothered' no matter how poor the farmers are.
The graphology of both texts play a big role in how Fairtrade may be interpreted by the reader when receiving this text; in text 1, the multi modal features such as the pictures indicate that the people being helped seem happy, especially "Thais' story". This multi modal feature may persuade the reader to believe that Fairtrade is doing a good job in helping people in developing countries and consequently making them happier, and the use of the concrete noun 'story' suggests that the girl has been through an inspiring and tough period and Fairtrade have helped her to change her life for the better. However, in text 2 the graphology is of a more dull atmosphere, with the images being used as a multi modal effect to create imagery in the readers mind that the farmers are not being helped and are working in poor conditions, and the caption underneath states "child labour", showing that the work they are doing may be illegal or at least exploitative because of the presumable low pay they are receiving.
Throughout the web page, text 1 uses lexis of positivity, such as strong adjectives like "stunning" and "beautiful" relating to photos being taken of the thriving community, suggesting through declaratives that a lot work has been done in the project to change the villages of the farmers into a positive, thriving and happy village. However, the newspaper article in text 2 states that the social project were "not proved to be equal to all" and "poor workers did not have access to proper facilities" as they were "reserved for managers"; again with the workers being labelled by the adjective "poor" it seems that the company may be discriminating against the poorest workers, as bewildering as it may seem. The adjective "reserved" indicates that the managers are only allowed to use the toilets, again suggesting the scheme may be discriminating against the poorest workers, a huge contrast to the thriving, happy project described in text 1 that seems all of its focus is based on helping every unprivileged worker they can.
Text 1
Text 2
In text 1, one of the first few sentences states, "Uncover to your class how Fairtrade is helping to break the cycle of poverty..." Belonging to the lexical field of assistance and help, the strong dynamic verb of 'helping' relays a message to the reader that the company are doing all they can to help poor farmers in the developing countries; the fact that it is an imperative shows that they want the message to be spread of their good work indicating that they are proud of what they are doing, and the dynamic verb 'uncover' persuades the reader to believe that if the help was to be uncovered it may be an interesting, motivating and appealing subject to talk about. Although text 2 has the same theme as text 1 about the work of Fairtrade, their representation of the company diverges extremely, as in their headline Fairtrade "fails to help poor farmers" the powerful dynamic verb 'fails' indicates to the reader that Fairtrade may not have put in maximum effort to help change the farmers lives who are described by the adjective as 'poor' which may further emphasise to the reader that the company are not trying hard enough or even 'bothered' no matter how poor the farmers are.
The graphology of both texts play a big role in how Fairtrade may be interpreted by the reader when receiving this text; in text 1, the multi modal features such as the pictures indicate that the people being helped seem happy, especially "Thais' story". This multi modal feature may persuade the reader to believe that Fairtrade is doing a good job in helping people in developing countries and consequently making them happier, and the use of the concrete noun 'story' suggests that the girl has been through an inspiring and tough period and Fairtrade have helped her to change her life for the better. However, in text 2 the graphology is of a more dull atmosphere, with the images being used as a multi modal effect to create imagery in the readers mind that the farmers are not being helped and are working in poor conditions, and the caption underneath states "child labour", showing that the work they are doing may be illegal or at least exploitative because of the presumable low pay they are receiving.
Throughout the web page, text 1 uses lexis of positivity, such as strong adjectives like "stunning" and "beautiful" relating to photos being taken of the thriving community, suggesting through declaratives that a lot work has been done in the project to change the villages of the farmers into a positive, thriving and happy village. However, the newspaper article in text 2 states that the social project were "not proved to be equal to all" and "poor workers did not have access to proper facilities" as they were "reserved for managers"; again with the workers being labelled by the adjective "poor" it seems that the company may be discriminating against the poorest workers, as bewildering as it may seem. The adjective "reserved" indicates that the managers are only allowed to use the toilets, again suggesting the scheme may be discriminating against the poorest workers, a huge contrast to the thriving, happy project described in text 1 that seems all of its focus is based on helping every unprivileged worker they can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)